Evil Lincoln vs. Hit Points: Death and Dying!

[Evil Lincoln]

First, thanks Freesword for the continuing discussion on this.

Second...

freesword wrote:

I do not like the bleed damage being based the wound that dropped you.

I can tell you don't like it, but I'm wondering why. The replacement you suggest (which I'll discuss below) seems more complex to achieve the same net effect. I am not meaning to be defensive, but I'd really like a clear, mechanical reason that you find "bleed what dropped you" to be undesirable.

freesword wrote:

Keep the rate fixed, but have it be 5 + 1/2 hit dice rounds. That means reduced to negative gives a minimum of 5 rounds to stabilize and (based on a 20th level character) a max of 15.

Fixed rate I can support, but for my part I am really bothered by mechanics that use HD or level as a factor in bleed rate. Abstract or literal HP, it makes no difference, I am very unhappy with any rule that makes characters bleed more just because they have more HP. I guess that's why I'm comfortable with the attack setting the bleed rate.

freesword wrote:

I still like having the possibility of instant death from the wound that drops you so I'm thinking a Fort save based off of the massive damage rules.

I completely agree that instant death due to catastrophic damage should still exist. In fact, it should be more common in my rule than it is. I have considered changing it so that you only have half your HP total in negative HP, just to bring this about. (You'd have to let low level characters use Con if it was higher.)

Fort save for massive damage is a solution, but a sort of heavy handed one. Of course, many people choose to play with it already. I agree with your thoughts on setting the DC completely.

--

I'm definitely seeing your side of some of these cases. I will take this point to note that I don't have a problem with the availability of resurrection magic at all. I use a number of tools that are already in the system to manage the impact of these spells in my game. Therefore, these spells don't impact my design rationale for the house rule — it just isn't among the problems of the never-seen disabled state and death-prone barbarians.

Again, thanks for taking up the discussion!

[Evil Lincoln]

Oh, wait, did you mean that the timer length was 5 + 1/2 HD?

Hm. That's totally different, and ... sort of better. But yes, you would absolutely need a fort save for massive damage with a tweaked DC.

I'm going to think about this, and wait for your detailed response about "bleed what dropped you"...

[Anonymous Visitor 163 576]

Freesword wrote:

I do not like the bleed damage being based the wound that dropped you.

I prefer de-coupling bleeding out and hp total.

Yes, this. I couldn't put my finger on it, but bleeding out should be something REALLY simple, like you bleed out in rounds = con, or rounds = level, or something like that.

[Can'tFindthePath]

Well EL, I for one think your idea for "bleed out" is totally awesome!

I would say more, but it would just be a rehashing of things already said.

-Cheers

[Torger Miltenberger]

Just found this thread and I'll admit to doing a little skimming rather than full reading so if this has been addressed already I apologize but the one thing I see that would bother me is that two handed weapons just got more dangerous... again.

Spreading damage out over multiple hits (the two-weapon fighter approach) will never be able to cause as fast a bleed out as one hit with a two-hander

Now maybe that's accurate and maybe it's not. That's a discusion that I'm personally not that interested in. I just think that the game already caters to two handed weapons enough and they don't need another thing working in their favor.

my two cp

- Torger

[Freesword]

Yes, timer length of 5 + 1/2 HD. Each round you fail to stabilize your lose a fixed 1 hp to bleed damage. Sorry if that was less then clear.

I briefly researched actual time to bleed to death to get a realistic point of reference and then worked out a formula that would be practical for game play that wouldn't go too far from that reference point.

As for my issues with "bleed what dropped you", I dislike the fact that it auto-repeats the damage from a single hit which could be a little or a lot, I dislike the fact that a hit while bleeding can alter the bleed rate, and I dislike that a big hit can still have you bleed out in a round or two and that a small enough hit can have you last long enough for your allies to end the fight, loot bodies, and grab a quick snack (some exaggeration may apply) before tending your wounds. And while I admit it is an edge case, there is also Kirth's issue of simultaneous damage.

I'm not saying it can't work. Your math is sound. I can even understand how to you some of these things may be desirable features, and appreciate that this is more an issue of personal preference.

If I find something to be mechanically flawed, I try to be as clear as I can in pointing it out. In situations like this I try to offer my best alternate approach (if I can come up with one) and agree to disagree.

This discussion has given me some new lines of thought to consider and new angles to look at the existing rules from.

[Goth Guru]

I have an idea I'm working on.
Coma rules.
Any skill or spell that prevents death causes a coma state. Thus if you bind all their wounds, they stop taking damage, but once a day they heal like a good night's sleep if tended to. They regain consciousness only when they are above zero hit points.
In a famous book, the king of the dwarves took massive damage. Must have been a thousand hit points. I think it took several months for him to recover, with lots of heal spells.

Note that if it's half a hit dice a round till stabilized, That's less abstract but still pretty brutal.

[Evil Lincoln]

@GG: Noted. Will consider for a while.