First, this article.
The rules for dying in Pathfinder have a few issues. They don't scale well with level, they're not terribly dramatic OR realistic, and specific character types (barbarians) can be directly screwed by them.
I've been thinking about how to fix this ever since I read that article above. I think the Alexandrian's dying rules are a good start, but they seem a little bit too… soft. At least for my tastes.
So, to kick off this thread, here is my idea:
Parse the consequences, my loyal army of ruleswonks! What would happen if you played this?
NOTE: It occurs to me that this whole idea is a rather roundabout way of introducing a "damage penalty" at 50% HP... just that the 50% mark is at 0HP. Har har!
Anyway, Rory, you have a great point. Is that an issue? If the first attack is considered abstract because it didn't take you down*, then it makes sense that the powerful attack that takes you down makes you bleed a lot faster... Well, it makes sense to me anyway.
Surely, it is as you say it is. I just don't know if that bothers me, or was it something I actually wanted.
If you were to do a fixed rate of bleed, how would you do that? Character level seems wrong. You should not bleed faster because of your accomplishments in life...
* That is, if you are one of the few people who says that a 45 point hit with a greataxe does not necessarily mean you were hit directly with a greataxe and shrugged it off, but that some other factors mitigated the damage. This would not be true of the last hit, which left you bleeding on the floor as well a greataxe ought to do.
I remembered why.
Under the RAW, if you suffer a particularly devastating hit, it might kill you outright but it also means there are probably fewer turns for you to bleed out before dying.
Under this variant, where you have many more negative HP, the effect of a single devastating attack is quite nerfed. Unless someone did close to double the damage necessary to kill you outright in the RAW, you're still a comfortable distance from death.
Making the killing-blow damage a factor in the bleed-out brings us back to that sense of urgency on harder hits.
If you don't have some amount of variability in the bleed rates, then the game will quickly become "oh the barbarian's down again. Don't worry, we have hours to save him." Surely, that's an improvement over the RAW; "Oops, the barbarian is at negative HP, loses rage and dies instantly".
What I'd like to see is "Oh, that was a serious hit! You guys had better get over there and help him, he hasn't got long after a hit like that..."
Just kind of thinking out loud here…
What we are looking for is something that imposes some kind of 'hurt' condition. We want something fairly simple, realistic and that will not slow down combat too much.
We are probably going to have to introduce a new roll of some sort.
Greater HP and higher Con should have an advantage in this system.
Not every wound is going to cause bleeding. How do we want to handle say…fire…electrical damage?
I think doubling HP is a bad idea. Bonus to higher HD Classes. This may be a good thing, debate. Hit Points can get unwieldy at the high ends as it stands, no?
What if we applied something similar to encumbrance rules when you hit 50% and again at 75%? Reduced movement, penalties to physical skills.
Bleed at 1/10 of the single most damaging strike (round down, min 1)?
Once you are down, you survive Level and/or Con rounds before you bleed out?
Points!
What we are looking for is something that imposes some kind of 'hurt' condition. We want something fairly simple, realistic and that will not slow down combat too much.
Forget realistic and I'm with you. How about "not ridiculous to the point of frustration"?
We are probably going to have to introduce a new roll of some sort.
Not sure. Stabilization Fort save might be enough. I'm open, though.
Greater HP and higher Con should have an advantage in this system.
Yes. And bonus points for fixing the barbarian's little HP problem. It is absolutely unforgivable to have the supposedly toughest class in the game face an increasing threat of death because of their bonus HP mechanic.
Not every wound is going to cause bleeding. How do we want to handle say…fire…electrical damage?
Bleeding, no. Cause dying? Yes. For my purposes, wounds that don't cause dying are represented by HP > 0. Once you're dying, I want resolution rules like the RAW has but better. I don't think it needs to be referred to as bleeding. Maybe "death timer" is a better way to think of it it.
I think doubling HP is a bad idea. Bonus to higher HD Classes. This may be a good thing, debate. Hit Points can get unwieldy at the high ends as it stands, no?
I think it is an unmitigated good thing. Especially if we're looking at sometimes huge bleed amounts... er... "step sizes on the death timer." Using negative max HP makes it scale with level. Making the bleed amounts bigger keeps it deadly.
What if we applied something similar to encumbrance rules when you hit 50% and again at 75%? Reduced movement, penalties to physical skills.
That's more of a game-changer. There is nothing wrong with that idea, but it has its own thread already, and it's a good thread too!
However, you technically should not bleed slower because of your accomplishments in life either is also a fair statement?
Actually, I would contest that. The case can be made that the toughest characters in the game should handle the dying condition better than the weaker characters. It's a matter of interpretation, surely, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion.
A Bleed die based on damage type?
Piercing = 1d12
Slashing = 1d10
Blunt = 1d8
A Bleed die based on damage type?
Piercing = 1d12
Slashing = 1d10
Blunt = 1d8
Not feeling it. Doesn't scale with level, and nerfs blunt weapons. If anything, the killing blow with a hammer should have a shorter timer, not a longer one. Caved-in skull is bad news.
I appreciate the creativity, though.
Sorry, I got stuck on the 'bleeding' thing.
Death Timer. Right! Got it.
Level in rounds? Level + HD in rounds? Level + HD + Con bonus in rounds?
Any of these appeal?
Am I correct in thinking that the opposition from you folks is that the attack itself shouldn't be the determinant of death-timer length? And if so, why not?
To me, it seems clear-cut. Max HP negative scales with level, big bleed (step size if I must) keeps it deadly.
I expect weird interactions with Die Hard, but that's gonna happen no matter what if you tamper with the dying rules.
EDIT: Hoo! This thread has legs. I'm having a ball, Courtfool & Rory, but I'm gonna think about it for a bit while the discussion rages on.
I'm having a ball, Courtfool, but I'm gonna think about it for a bit while the discussion rages on.
I like to bring a different perspective since most of my experience is with different systems. My weakness is lack of familiarity with the core rules.
Am I correct in thinking that the opposition from you folks is that the attack itself shouldn't be the determinant of death-timer length?
For me, static numbers are easier to remember and therefore less prone to slowing the game down. They can be written down for easier reference. Even easier when they are directly linked to something, especially if it is a single something.
A more damaging strike already brought the character closer to death quicker by the mere fact that it was more damaging. You want to make that progress exponential…which I am not saying is necessarily a bad thing. Just something to be aware of.
For me, personally, I would rather you just say everyone has X rounds after reaching 0 HP before they die. The increased complexity and time do not seem worth it. But our tastes are obviously different and I am happy to toss out random ideas.
For me, personally, I would rather you just say everyone has X rounds after reaching 0 HP before they die. The increased complexity and time do not seem worth it. But our tastes are obviously different and I am happy to toss our random ideas.
Make no mistake, even weird ideas are appreciated.
Another side effect of basing the time on the size of the attack is you want to be taken down by a low damage strike. If you want to get really screwy, have one of your allies hit you with a crossbow bolt before the Big Bad gets his killing shot in.
Hit Points are supposed to be an abstraction anyway. A 1d6 attack against you when you are 100 is different than 1d6 against you when you are at 3. Most people I have played with narrate that final 1d6 as much more brutal than they would that first 1d6. So why should it matter if 1 point of damage was the final straw or 20 points?
Another side effect of basing the time on the size of the attack is you want to be taken down by a low damage strike. If you want to get really screwy, have one of your allies hit you with a crossbow bolt before the Big Bad gets his killing shot in.
That's... really creative. But seriously? No, that will never happen Court. And if it did happen, the situation would have to be every bit as silly as it sounds. Come to think of it, I think you could find a few examples of "pity knockout" like that in fiction... but the benefits are so non-existent that I doubt anyone would seriously consider this tactic.
Hit Points are supposed to be an abstraction anyway. A 1d6 attack against you when you are 100 is different than 1d6 against you when you are at 3. Most people I have played with narrate that final 1d6 as much more brutal than they would that first 1d6. So why should it matter if 1 point of damage was the final straw or 20 points?
I'll confess, much of this idea is inspired by the Injury Damage variant we're discussing in another thread. In that system, the last hit is the "real one". So, with that background, the assumptions do make a bit of sense.
Ideally though, this rule should stand alone without the injury damage variant. Or not, if there's a damn good reason.
(the whole level per round bleed thing isn't what you want tho, so let's skip to the last hit bleeding per round you do like)
Well, I'm open to change if a better idea comes up.
Another side effect of basing the time on the size of the attack is you want to be taken down by a low damage strike. If you want to get really screwy, have one of your allies hit you with a crossbow bolt before the Big Bad gets his killing shot in.That's... really creative. But seriously? No, that will never happen Court. And if it did happen, the situation would have to be every bit as silly as it sounds. Come to think of it, I think you could find a few examples of "pity knockout" like that in fiction... but the benefits are so non-existent that I doubt anyone would seriously consider this tactic.
I would totally do it. When at low hp, I'd have a 1st level warrior follower hold an action to hit me if the BBEG attacks me (or just tell my familiar to bite me). I'd much rather bleed out over the course of 15 rounds, rather than instantly -- it's almost as good as having an auto-stabilize option. Yes, it's silly in terms of being "unrealistic," but it's not silly at all in the sense that the rule is actively pushing you to do this, if you have any sense at all.
Question: What if you get hit with a lot of stuff at once? (I'm thinking specifically of my wizard PC who got hit with six flame stikes simultaneously, dropping him from full hp to -5 instantly). Would all that damage count towards bleed? Or just one of them?
Question: What if you get hit with a lot of stuff at once? (I'm thinking specifically of my wizard PC who got hit with six flame stikes simultaneously, dropping him from full hp to -5 instantly). Would all that damage count towards bleed? Or just one of them?
Well, if we're talking about the Injury Damage variant, the first few flame strikes would be the ones that he aggressively dodged, or that his armor mitigated before it got all burnt up. Only the ones that put him below zero HP would reflect actually sizzling his tookus.
I wouldn't know how to interpret it more generically. It's not like it makes more sense under the RAW, getting hit by all that fire and being just fine.
It's not like it makes more sense under the RAW, getting hit by all that fire and being just fine.
Wait. I thought we were just talking about the death timer here.
I would totally do it.
I was just trying to make a point. I think there are other, creative and more subtle, ways to exploit this. It essentially rewards whoever takes on the minions rather than squaring off with the Big Bad.
I would totally do it.I was just trying to make a point. I think there are other, creative and more subtle, ways to exploit this. It essentially rewards whoever takes on the minions rather than squaring off with the Big Bad.
Doesn't this also hold true in the RAW, though?
We don't see people readying non-lethal attacks to drop their allies when the big bad attacks.
I'd frankly always rather be standing and attacking than out but safe. And it's not safe, anyway.
The way that scenario actually plays out is this:
Big bad attacks, ally thinks he'll be clever and save you the pain by hitting you with a light attack first. Ally hits you with a light attack, and you start to bleed a little. You're not unconscious, so you're still in the fight (as per the OP) so the big bad gives your ally a thumbs-up and hits you anyway for presumably more damage. Your ally is now your enemy.
How is this optimal?
Another way of putting it is, if you take MORE damage after the hit that brings you down, you should start to bleed for that much. If someone wants to pummel your unconscious body into a fine mist, that should be pretty tough to survive.
O.k. Now I am really confused. By RAW, do you not take damage after you reach 0 HP? That really puts a new perspective on this discussion for me.
Well, if we're talking about the Injury Damage variant, the first few flame strikes would be the ones that he aggressively dodged, or that his armor mitigated before it got all burnt up. Only the ones that put him below zero HP would reflect actually sizzling his tookus.
Six identical casters, one roll by DM for Team Monster initiative = six SIMULTANEOUS flame strikes, not six of them in sequence. Or does the DM now roll intiative for every monster individually, just in case? It could work, but overall this variant seems like an awful lot to track -- you need to keep track of which attack dropped you, the exact damage it caused, etc. -1 hp/round, while an annoyingly static margin, is REALLY easy to keep track of.
Another way of putting it is, if you take MORE damage after the hit that brings you down, you should start to bleed for that much.
But not if you take less, obviously. Yeah, that could work. But it just seems like we're already starting to add a lot of verbiage and clauses to what, ideally, would be a simple and streamlined rule...
Parse the consequences, my loyal army of ruleswonks! What would happen if you played this?
Hey, I am NOT your minion! ;)
Enough joking, more rulewonking...
Not convinced about this whole 'bleed' thing. Sounds a bit swingy to me at first sight...
However, there is something I love from Alexander's article; it gets rid of the dying condition; instead replacing it by the disabled condition with a conscious/unconscious tag and a stable/unstable tag.
This streamlines the disabled condition into something both more usable and more dramatic. The only drawback (if it really is one), it either creates a rule applicable for PCs only (which goes against the spirit of 3.5/Pathfinder RPGs where everyone uses the same system), or it creates a lot more bookkeeping for the DM who now has to track which monster is disabled but conscious and could still play nasty tricks on PCs (or heal themselves, or raise the alarm etc) even after being defeated.
When I first red that article, I immediately went back to my houserules folder and re-wrote the 'dying' part. Don't have the rules with me, but it's something along the line of:
Below 0 hp, a creature becomes disabled. It must immediately succeed a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage below 0) or loses consciousness.
At the beginning of its next turn, the creature must roll a % dice and roll equal or below its CON score to stabilize (10 + Con mod. would also do). If the stabilization roll fails, the creature loses 1 hp. If the creature is conscious, it can perform a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions, but he can still take swift, immediate, and free actions). He moves at half speed. Taking move actions doesn't risk further injury, but performing any standard action (or any other action the GM deems strenuous, including some free actions such as casting a quickened spell) deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act.
[edit] The last part is taken directly from the RaW disabled condition.
At the end of its round, a conscious creature must succeed another Fortitude save to remain conscious (DC 10 + updated hp below 0).
A stable creature does not lose further hp, unless it perform a strenuous action. Any situation that create hp loss (including straining yourself when stable) makes you unstable again and you must roll every round to stabilize on your own.
A disabled character is always considered overwhelmed (a condition that I created as a catch-all condition to apply when thing sucks. It replaces grappled, staggered, entangled, includes being denied DEX bonus to AC and therefore applicable when climbing or swimming without proper feat etc).
I'm not sure if I should keep death at -CON or at -hp total. HP total seems a lot at high level, and not enough at 1st level...
While I appreciate the concept on a thematic level, on a mechanics level a character has pretty much no incentive not to willingly fail the save and drop unconscious thereby making themselves less of a target.
This happens in real life. It's called cowardice.
Seriously, I don't see the potential for everyone taking themselves out of the fight. Sentient enemies are going to finish the job if you pass out or don't escape, and animal-intelligence enemies are going to tear you up for dinner.
You are all telling me that you would seriously choose to go limp on the battlefield in order to avoid a pretty-much guaranteed death timer of 1 or more rounds... which is the same length of death timer you get if you are extremely lucky at mid-high levels by RAW.
It's all the same to me, it's just a house rule suggestion. But I am just not seeing these incentives to take a dive prematurely.
Additionally, this is almost a form of hit point inflation. The "bleed out the damage that dropped you" is little more than trying to patch the fact that you have basically extended the bleed out time from rounds to minutes.
Staggered is pretty harsh. This IS an attempt to reconcile the bleed time — no cover-up there. Look, the problem now is that we have a fixed threshold of "dying" HP and an increasing amount of damage that characters face. This is what causes Rocket tag. If you extend the dying HP, it scales better with level. Adding HD# to Constitution for negative HP is something, but the attack damage is still waaaay outpacing the number of Negative HP, so you're going to drift back to rocket tag as you level up.
The only mechanical plus to this is the Barbarian issue, which I resolved as a house rule by changing the way rage works. I removed the Con increase and replaced it with a DR increase. Hit points remain static, and the DR just soaks more damage.
I don't think that's the only mechanical advantage. The goal, as per the Alexandrian article, is to widen the target for the disabled state. By RAW, it's statistically unlikely that characters will ever hit the disabled state after level 1-3, and even then it's improbable.
We still want a death timer, and we want severe consequences for falling below zero. What I've suggested may not be perfect, but it's not the total joke people are making it out to be. The notion of people falling out of combat to save themselves from a potential 1 or 2 round bleedout (only in the case of biiig damage, mind you) is ridiculous. People could do that in the RAW, and they don't. It's a total fabrication.
Details aside, the premise of this completely overlooks the fact that dead is a treatable condition.
That is tangential at best. I don't even see how it's relevant. Availability of death-cures is a GM-specific kind of thing, but I run the RAW pretty closely and its still pretty hard. I've never heard a player say "oh well, I guess I'll just die and be rezz'd" and I don't go to any specific lengths to stop those spells.
And the final nail I have for this coffin is that there is already a way to function past negative hit points. The Die Hard Feat.
I called this out upthread. I don't seen any coffin. I really respect your opinion, Freesword, but I don't think you looked at this long enough to give a fair assessment. I think people are paying way to much deference to the idea that people would drop out of the fight to save themselves. It wouldn't even work. The BBEG would just move on to the next target and slit throats when he finished. In the scenarios where it would work — when you could somehow combine passing out with hiding — then that's actually a realistic thing that happens on battlefields. I still don't imagine any player opting in to that silliness.
Anyway, I'm a little surprised by the dismissal I've received on such a young idea here, so I apologize if anything in this post seems snappy or defensive (or worse yet, personal). I'm standing my ground on this one, and reasoned rebuttals are more than welcome.
Anyway, I'm a little surprised by the dismissal I've received on such a young idea here, so I apologize if anything in this post seems snappy or defensive (or worse yet, personal). I'm standing my ground on this one, and reasoned rebuttals are more than welcome.
Again, all of the proposed scamming the system aside, my biggest issue is that it seems to create a disproportionate amount of stuff to keep track of, as compared to the benefit it provides. I'd have to see it in actual play to decide for sure, but I suspect that the annoyance of the additional tracking of things would, for me, outweigh the pleasure of what it adds. Again, that's only a gut feeling; I'd have to playtest it first.
Again, all of the proposed scamming the system aside, my biggest issue is that it seems to create a disproportionate amount of stuff to keep track of, as compared to the benefit it provides. I'd have to see it in actual play to decide for sure, but I suspect that the annoyance of the additional tracking of things would, for me, outweigh the pleasure of what it adds. Again, that's only a gut feeling; I'd have to playtest it first.
Thank you for the second look, Kirth. I'll grant you that, it is more complex. You have a variable step size on the timer instead of losing 1 hp per round.
That's a level of complexity I'm willing to accept. "Dude, you're down and you lose 16 hp per round" is something I can handle, but if that's what turns some people off, I understand.
I'm really keen to hear a defense of the "scamming" possibility, because I feel like I've debunked it. If it's a real potential problem, I'd love to know.
And thanks again to everyone who is even looking this over, I do appreciate it.
I am in the "mmmm... I don't know" camp and a little conservative when it comes to this sort of thing.
Otherwise, base damage on the dice that put the character there... a rapier knocks some one down to 0? Next round they take 6 damage, Greatsword? 12.
That could be interesting...
There also the possibility of losing a dX number of hit points per round instead of 1 point per round (as in RaW) or any other fixed (and therefore predictable) amount of ongoing damage.
If a character was losing d6 points per round, that could result in ssome cases of survival against all odds and put a stop to the metagame-y "he's good for 7 more rounds, so we've got time".
findel.
Okay - so tracking multiple hits? I'm trying to think this out to a final conclusion...He's downed with a longsword (and so takes D8), what happens if they keep stabbing him?
I wasn't thinking beyond a universal 'take d6 damage every round when below o hp', but tying it to the weapon that dropped the opponent is a cool idea.
It would need to keep the highest 'hitter' otherwise you might run into aberrations such as "No! Don't finish him off with your dagger! Joe dropped him with his battleaxe so he'll die quicker if you just leave him alone!".
Otherwise, base damage on the dice that put the character there... a rapier knocks some one down to 0? Next round they take 6 damage, Greatsword? 12.
This is along the same train of thought I was going with.
There also the possibility of losing a dX number of hit points per round instead of 1 point per round (as in RaW) or any other fixed (and therefore predictable) amount of ongoing damage.
I like this approach.
Okay - so tracking multiple hits? I'm trying to think this out to a final conclusion...
He's downed with a longsword (and so takes D8), what happens if they keep stabbing him?
I think damage as normal and the bleed damage is the largest weapon he was hit with + # of additional hits he took.
So I am -1 hps thanks to an arrow (D8).
I am hit by 2 more arrows (and so lose 2D8 normally) and a great axe (and lose D12). For bleed I take D12+2?
I would assume that this is in addition to damage dealt by the extra hits as well, correct?
Also, in the advent that a crit takes you down, I would add the modifier to it.
So by the example given above it might look something like this:
Weapon: Greataxe
- Downed= D12\round bleed out.
- Downed by Crit= D12+3\round.
- Multiple hits= D12\hit (enemy's turn), then D12+# of hits\round (your turn)
- Downed by Crit + Multiple hits= D12\hit (enemy's turn), then D12+3+# of hits\round (your turn)
Now for spells, maybe something like this:
Spell: Fireball
- Downed= D6+1\die above the first\round (5d6= D6+4 smolder)
Spell: Acid Arrow (not counting 2d4\round\3 CL)
- Downed= D4+1\round
- Downed + Crit= D4+1(extra die)+2(crit)
Otherwise, base damage on the dice that put the character there... a rapier knocks some one down to 0? Next round they take 6 damage, Greatsword? 12.
It's well-known that I'm very much against the pervasive "OMG SUPER GIANT WEAPONS ARE TEH ROXXOR!!!!!!!!!!!" trope in the game, so bear in mind that any suggestion that exacerbates it will be met with reflexive disapproval on my part.
Still, I'm trying to look past that, and I'm seeing a rule that drastically favors spellcasters as the super-killers, because it's hard for anyone's sword, even a 10-ft.-long Anime one, to compete with a 15d6 flame strike when it comes to bleed damage. Fallen Mage's caveat (+1 per additional die) helps some, so you're looking at 20 hp/rd. bleed from the flame strike (vs. 4 from cutting someone's throat with a dagger, remember) -- but, more importantly to me, it requires yet another caveat/explanatory note in the rules text.
Which hits up against an idiosyncratic limit that may or may not exist for each person using it: how long, in terms of word count and number of subordinate clauses, are we comfortable with a rule being?
The only part of this that holds any interest of mine is the concept of remaining conscious but disabled at >/= -1hp. I feel like it could have some nifty RP scenarios, especially in situations where there is some way a PC can still contribute (such as making a Fort save to muster the strength to shout a warning, maybe granting an ally +1 to a save or AC for the round). The purpose there being only to keep a negative HP PC in the game and engage the player.
Actually, 'findel's mention of stabilization rolls using your Con score for your stabilization range is kind of awesome. I really like that and I'll be running that by my players next session. It rarely comes up because we still use Eberron style action points, but it is definitely a flavorful mechanic that can increase tension when the more frail characters drop (and they know who to watch out for).
Otherwise, I feel like the original idea would overcomplicate the game. If I am to be totally honest right now, I haven't even seriously considered scenarios where this might apply to my games, because it would slow us down. I can't get on your wave length here, EL, because it's out of my comfort zone.
One last comment, regarding falling unconscious at -1: Let me preface by saying that I know you are not looking for realism, and I do not claim to have a med school degree, just a passing interest in maintaining a *semblance* of realism for immersion purposes. I just want to point this out because of the disassociation I see with the mechanic. I think falling unconscious at -1 is an abstraction of some sort of shock. Going into shock is a physiological defense. Maybe you understand that, and that's why you include the Fort save to maintain consciousness, but I would think that willingly fighting your body's natural reaction to succumbing to system damage could be very dangerous*. In remaining conscious, you would be fully aware of the pain (staggered), but also without massive amounts of will power you could inadvertently increase your heart rate in excitement/anxiety/fear/anger/whathaveyou and cause your injuries to speed the "bleed out" process up.
Again, I don't have any medical background, just passing knowledge of the body from A&P and some brief first aid at basic training. In a fantasy game, staying conscious sounds heroic, and you see it in movies a lot, but it's something to consider. Choosing to fall unconscious may not even be a Fortitude thing, it could just as easily be justified as a Will save.
*"But they're already in danger in combat!" Well, yeah, of course, there's that, BUT the PC should make a judgment call there: Am I in more danger if I just lay down, or should I fall and wait for my friends to come to my aid? It isn't a matter of cowardice. Not every hero has to put himself into MORE danger just because he's on the losing side of the DPR. A hero (PC) should know when he HAS to survive an encounter to be able to go on later, to stop the BBEG or otherwise. Not EVERY encounter is the final boss, and if playing dead this time to be able to trade steel with the CR 28 Lich at the end of the tunnel is what needs to be done, it shouldn't be met with disdain.
EDIT: "One last comment" turned into a rant. Apologies.
Still, I'm trying to look past that, and I'm seeing a rule that drastically favors spellcasters as the super-killers, because it's hard for anyone's sword, even a 10-ft.-long Anime one, to compete with a 15d6 flame strike when it comes to bleed damage. Fallen Mage's caveat (+1 per additional die) helps some, so you're looking at 20 hp/rd. bleed from the flame strike (vs. 4 from cutting someone's throat with a dagger, remember) -- but, more importantly to me, it requires yet another caveat/explanatory note in the rules text.
?
No caveat — the rule is functioning as expected, I think.
Let's say you take 52 damage from a 15d6 flame strike. Given a 15th level fighter with around 140 hit points, and let's say he had 20 left when the flame strike hits. That puts him at about -30-ish, with a two or three round death timer.
Compare the same scenario to the RAW, which is instant death.
Note that altering the duration of the death timer is not a stated objective of this house rule. The stated objective is to increase the frequency with which the dying state occurs (i.e. eliminate rocket tag), and to do so in a way that scales with level. The Raw makes the dying state an ever narrowing target, and the disabled state even moreso. That's the perceived problem.
I think the rule language is quite simple: you have negative HP equal to your max HP, and you lose an amount each turn equal to the attack that dropped you. If you take a more severe hit while dying, use that number instead. What more subordinate clauses are necessary?
Please continue to pick this apart mercilessly. I am growing more confident that it actually works as desired. Give me your best shot!
Rule restated for clarity:
Let's take table 1-1 from the Bestiary, and extrapolate the high and low damage into death timers. We'll presume a d8 HD class with a +1 con, and a d10 HD class with a +3 con as the targets.
We'll also assume a critical hit, just to be fair (although I've tabulated standard its for high damage and low damage as well).
By RAW, then, you will hit the dying state at levels 1-4, presuming you have half as many (positive) HP remaining as the attack deals, which in my experience is a fair number to choose for battle conditions. At third level, a single, devastating attack might deal 26 damage (in an extreme case), and a strong HD character might have 13 of his total 42 hit points left. By Raw, this kind of attack puts that character at -13 HP, three points shy of his 16 Con, or a death timer of 3 rounds.
The house rule would also put the same fighter at -13, but he's going to -42 instead of negative Con. This doesn't work out very well for him, if he's losing 26 damage a turn. After 1 round, he will be at -39, and the next round he will be dead. If conscious, he can "grit his teeth" and take only 13 damage. This buys him a couple of rounds, and maybe he can get into position for a Pyrrhic victory, or get healing.
However, to take a higher level example, I think we can see how this system makes the dying condition scale with level!
At 8th level, our same fighter has 90 hp total. The extreme-case monster attack damage is 70 damage in one shot. If we allow a current HP of 35 for the fighter, he will be at -35. He's dead by RAW. He has one round of dying by the houserule.
Indeed, at around 4th level, the prospect of a character surviving a devastating attack becomes impossible by RAW. Using this house rule, the toughest characters can expect one round of "last hurrah" before they die, and maybe can get healing or heal themselves if they are still conscious.
Do bear in mind that the damage numbers are intentional overestimates. In most cases, the damage would be halved, and so the expected death timers would be doubled. For low-damage attacks, the death timer would further increase, to and average of 4-8 rounds dying before death. This is about how long it is by RAW at levels 1-3, except this rule scales with level!!!
Many of these numbers are estimates, informed by the Bestiary and Character HD. If you feel I'm way off, please tell me.
What if you factored in CON to the bleed damage. Presumably a tougher character could "grit it out" better than a wimpier one.
Using your example of an 8th level fighter at 35 hp and then takes a 70 hp hit. He's at -35 and dying. Next round he bleeds 70 hp(the hit) - 16 CON (based on +3 given) for a total of 54 hp. He's now at -89. That fighter's high CON just bought him one more round.
What if you factored in CON to the bleed damage. Presumably a tougher character could "grit it out" better than a wimpier one.
Using your example of an 8th level fighter at 35 hp and then takes a 70 hp hit. He's at -35 and dying. Next round he bleeds 70 hp(the hit) - 16 CON (based on +3 given) for a total of 54 hp. He's now at -89. That fighter's high CON just bought him one more round.
Interesting notion, but isn't Con already a factor in Max HP? Theoretically, high Con characters are already getting longer death timers in this system. I'm also scared by that additional math a little.
I do honestly appreciate the creativity of the suggestion, though.
Personally, (and I haven't playtested your ideas), it seems you would have better results going with something like the Star Wars/Spycraft system of having two kinds of hit points.
They have vitality and wounds, and vitality goes first. Taking wound damage could easily put you into a 'hurt' status, and it seems mechanically easier to deal with.
(Maybe that's because I already know how those rules work)
One side effect of your rules is that the coup-de-grace becomes almost automatic for intelligent opponents. The bleed damage on a coup-de-grace will almost automatically finish anyone. I see this becoming more common.
----------------------------------------------------------------
You may find that you want a 'wounded' status in your game. It also serves to make combat less lethal. Because badly wounded people can be safely ignored most of the time, the opponents can then proceed to do whatever it is they came for. (steal Macguffin, rescue prisoner, etc.)
It only fails when the purpose of the battle is "I have sworn to kill you", in which case you're no worse off than before.
Wounded status effects also give a boost to blasters, often the only characters capable of hurting a bunch of people at once. Talk to Kirth more about that, he's got more experience with it.