Design & Development: Death and Dying

173 posts / 0 new
Last post
the 4 D's:


http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080201a&authentic=true

haven't finished reading it, but looks potential...




edit: wow, that was alot of text for a very basic rule :P

for those not wanting to have it spoiled:
Show
instead of -10, you now get -half your hitpoints. 30 hp, -15 before death. minimum -10


would be really interesting to see the diehard feat with these rules in function. would really make that hit-point barbarian nasty :D
the 4 D's:


http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080201a&authentic=true

haven't finished reading it, but looks potential...




edit: wow, that was alot of text for a very basic rule :P

for those not wanting to have it spoiled:
Show
instead of -10, you now get -half your hitpoints. 30 hp, -15 before death. minimum -10


would be really interesting to see the diehard feat with these rules in function. would really make that hit-point barbarian nasty :D

Just my opinion, but I think the diehard feat probably died. Or significantly changed its mechanics.
Despite being very anti-4e, I think this is a great idea, and a few more articles like these may convince me to buy the game. I find the idea that monsters could deal enough damage that you need a 60 hp buffer on your fighter to be a bit odd, but if they make it work it could be good. I will definitely use the rules the present in my future D&D games.
nautilus:

Obviously they wouldn't port the diehard feat straight from 3e into 4e, especially with these sort of death rules :p. but it would have been hilarious for 2 minutes.


they need to check their typos though, the summary at the bottom of the rules says 1/4hp, the text itself says 1/2 hp. personally 1/2 seems to be better balanced.

though i have to say the other extra rules for stabilizing and healing makes for a overall better impression. although the natural 20 gives you back 1/4 of your HP is a bit "wtf?". guess its the DM in me thinking "oh great, he's back in the battle, foiled again."


eightbitmage: yeah, these rules can somewhat be ported right into 3e and make epic a bit less lethal. though you have to be careful about mentioned feats :P
I think the new death rules sound like an improvement on 3E. The only thing missing I was hoping for was a disabled but conscious rule. For the whole iconic dieing speech thing. I guess it would be pretty simple to house rule like 0 to -4 or -9 you're disabled but conscious.
I love it. It is so simple and it takes care of the little oddities in the rules that didn't make much sense.

Oh and btw, you all should read more carefully.

2) Characters die when their negative hit point total reaches -10 or one-quarter of their full normal hit points, whichever is a larger value.

It is 1/4 not 1/2. I think that the 1/2 thing was just an example of what the rules could look like, or perhaps it was a typo. Who knows...

edit: guess I'm too slow...
I love it. It is so simple and it takes care of the little oddities in the rules that didn't make much sense.

Oh and btw, you all should read more carefully.

2) Characters die when their negative hit point total reaches -10 or one-quarter of their full normal hit points, whichever is a larger value.

It is 1/4 not 1/2. I think that the 1/2 thing was just an example of what the rules could look like, or perhaps it was a typo. Who knows...

Umm, no, you should read the rules more carefully.

The '1/4 or 10' rule is a suggested variant to use in your 3.5 games. 4e will use the 1/2 rule.
1/2 is 4th. 1/4 is now
Umm, no, you should read the rules more carefully.

The '1/4 or 10' rule is a suggested variant to use in your 3.5 games. 4e will use the 1/2 rule.

.

I guess that I need to .
Man I feel so stupid.
I think the new death rules sound like an improvement on 3E. The only thing missing I was hoping for was a disabled but conscious rule. For the whole iconic dieing speech thing. I guess it would be pretty simple to house rule like 0 to -4 or -9 you're disabled but conscious.

Except I think if you do this, you'll have PCs using their "speech" to activate magic item command words, or arguing that they should still be able to cast spells if they can speak, not making dramatic soliloquies.

If it's an NPC you want to have make the speech, I see no reason to not just allow them to make their speech when in the negatives. If a PC wants to say something right before falling unconscious that they understand can't be used for an actual combat action, let them. Rules for a special condition aren't neccessary for this rare scenario.
Except I think if you do this, you'll have PCs using their "speech" to activate magic item command words, not making dramatic soliloquies.

If it's an NPC you want to have make the speech, I see no reason to not just allow them to make their speech when in the negatives. Rules for a special condition aren't neccessary for this rare scenario.

yeah, i want to have my Boromir dialogue too. that would be so much fun! i hope they add some sort of optional rule for that in there somewhere.

hmm, it was hard to notice that text saying those rules were for 3e. when i see numbers with text that might be rules after it, i usually jump straight to the number-texts :p
I too think this is an improvement. Very clean. I wonder how fast healing and the like will work?

Was just talking about implementing these rules in my 3rd Ed game, and fast healing and regeneration, which are both usually low values (especially for PCs), might keep you waking up with a super-low hit point total.

At first I thought maybe fast healing could work, but when you hit positive hit points, you might get 1/4 of your health, as if you had rolled a 20 and "got better" - but my friend pointed out that this was exploitable: you could stab yourself when you had 1 hp and wake up a round later with one quarter your total.

Waking up with 1 hp is still kind of a drag, even if you've got a larger negative hit point buffer.

I think I might try essentially allowing characters to stay unconscious if they go into positive hit points with fast healing - they have the option to wake up with their low hit points and do something heroic and dangerous, or to stay "unconscious" and out of the fight while they continue to heal up. A bit unrealistic, but better for movie-action D&D. Thoughts?
I find it interesting that you die after three rounds of failed saving throws . . . Even if you're not at (- 1/2 hp). A very redeeming quality (to me, at least) in keeping the game dangerous for the pcs.
Except I think if you do this, you'll have PCs using their "speech" to activate magic item command words, or arguing that they should still be able to cast spells if they can speak, not making dramatic soliloquies.

If it's an NPC you want to have make the speech, I see no reason to not just allow them to make their speech when in the negatives. If a PC wants to say something right before falling unconscious that they understand can't be used for an actual combat action, let them. Rules for a special condition aren't neccessary for this rare scenario.

What about the BBEG activating some sort of suicide MAD devise like the Predator or the bad guys at Flaustin (sp?) Paradise in 5th Element with his last ounce of strength. That would be cool. Without the rule players can cry foul.

As far as PC's activating wands or something else it's simple, the PC's speech is to garbled and raspy to properly activate any magic and most spells require some sort of complicated hand gestures. A -10 on UMD or Concentration would be sufficient. Think of a rogue misfiring a wand. It could to dangerous to try. Also trying would probably just draw attention from the monsters the PC is fighting and a disabled wizard lying on the ground would make a juicy coup de grace.
Just a brief question of clarification: Do they mean negative 1/4 full hit points or 1/4 full hit points? Because this distinction wil say whether or not I really feel like using it at all. If you die at neg 10 or whenever you reach one-fourth your normal full hit-points, then a fighter with 100 hit points would die as soon as they reached 25 hit points. I mean what would be the benefit of this? IF this is actually how it works, I am so not using it.

I personally use a houserule: You fall unconc at your neg con mod or -1 if you con is less than 12. You die at neg con unless it is 10 or lower. If you have a 17 con, you die at neg 17. Works wonders and alot fewer player deaths. Have to thank my First DMs Andy and Daren for that one.

I find it interesting that you die after three rounds of failed saving throws . . . Even if you're not at (- 1/2 hp). A very redeeming quality (to me, at least) in keeping the game dangerous for the pcs.

Not quite... I'd imagine that once you get back up, everything is reset.

Even still, when you're down for the count, three bad rolls and that's it. They don't have to be consecutive. So, you know that your friend has at least three rounds in him, but I expect some real tension every time that "die" roll comes around.
The only thing missing I was hoping for was a disabled but conscious rule. For the whole iconic dieing speech thing. I guess it would be pretty simple to house rule like 0 to -4 or -9 you're disabled but conscious.

Actually, I'd propose that you use Action Points for that. We already have heard that your unconscious character can spend an Action Point to stabilize himself.

How about a rule that let's you spend an Action Point to remain conscious but dying? Any action, including a free action such as speech, will result in you dying, after the action is resolved... even if the action would otherwise heal you. Thus, using the action to drink a healing potion won't work; you die before the potion goes down your throat. Casting a mass healing spell will heal everyone but you; you die even as you sacrifice yourself to help your friends.
Not quite... I'd imagine that once you get back up, everything is reset.

Even still, when you're down for the count, three bad rolls and that's it. They don't have to be consecutive. So, you know that your friend has at least three rounds in him, but I expect some real tension every time that "die" roll comes around.

Yeah, that's what I meant, 3 bad rolls in a row. We're on the same track, here. :D
This is tangential, but between the reveal about death and dying mechanics and a discussion in another thread about giants, I wonder how regeneration and/or fast healing will work for trolls and similar critters. We know that there's a "bloodied" condition, and (if I recall correctly) that there's some forms of healing similar to the second wind in SWSE. I wouldn't mind seeing regeneration turn into a set of powers along the lines of: "Free action, 1/encounter, recharge: You can automatically take 20 on your stop-dying roll." Certainly less hassle than adding back 5 hit points every turn. (It's not the math, it's the bother I dislike.)
Just a brief question of clarification: Do they mean negative 1/4 full hit points or 1/4 full hit points? Because this distinction wil say whether or not I really feel like using it at all. If you die at neg 10 or whenever you reach one-fourth your normal full hit-points, then a fighter with 100 hit points would die as soon as they reached 25 hit points. I mean what would be the benefit of this? IF this is actually how it works, I am so not using it.

I personally use a houserule: You fall unconc at your neg con mod or -1 if you con is less than 12. You die at neg con unless it is 10 or lower. If you have a 17 con, you die at neg 17. Works wonders and alot fewer player deaths. Have to thank my First DMs Andy and Daren for that one.

Heres the actual wording for you;

2) Characters die when their negative hit point total reaches -10 or one-quarter of their full normal hit points, whichever is a larger value.
This is less than a 4th Edition character would have, but each monster attack is dealing a smaller fraction of the character’s total hit points, so it should be reasonable. If it feels too small, increase it to one-third full normal hit points and try again.

The bolded phrase is key
Heres the actual wording for you;

2) Characters die when their negative hit point total reaches -10 or one-quarter of their full normal hit points, whichever is a larger value.
This is less than a 4th Edition character would have, but each monster attack is dealing a smaller fraction of the character’s total hit points, so it should be reasonable. If it feels too small, increase it to one-third full normal hit points and try again.

The bolded phrase is key

Okay. Its when they hit negative One-Quarter of their full hit points. Thanks. Makes it alot more valuable to use.

Okay. Its when they hit negative One-Quarter of their full hit points. Thanks. Makes it alot more valuable to use.

Just to repeat the reminder, "negative one-quarter of full hit points, or -10" is the rule if you're using the 4e death rule in your 3.5 game.

Anyway, time to talk about the rule itself.

It makes a lot of sense, looking like an expanded version of house rules typically used by DMs who knew that -10 wasn't a big enough window at high levels. Under that system, the exact value of the negative total doesn't matter like it did in 3.5.

An interesting possibility, which would be worth adding in future 4e supplements if it's not in the initial rules, are attacks or other effects which can vary the number of 'strikes' before you're 'out'. For example, a monster whose attack is so devastating that a PC only has to miss one or two rolls before dying.
This is tangential, but between the reveal about death and dying mechanics and a discussion in another thread about giants, I wonder how regeneration and/or fast healing will work for trolls and similar critters. We know that there's a "bloodied" condition, and (if I recall correctly) that there's some forms of healing similar to the second wind in SWSE. I wouldn't mind seeing regeneration turn into a set of powers along the lines of: "Free action, 1/encounter, recharge: You can automatically take 20 on your stop-dying roll." Certainly less hassle than adding back 5 hit points every turn. (It's not the math, it's the bother I dislike.)

i think they mentioned somewhere that regeneration is now not x/round but an ability that you could use every 3-6 rounds and gain 3x-6x hp back. i think the argument behind this was that it was less hassle for the DM to heal 4x every 4 rounds than every round.

Actually, I'd propose that you use Action Points for that. We already have heard that your unconscious character can spend an Action Point to stabilize himself.

How about a rule that let's you spend an Action Point to remain conscious but dying? Any action, including a free action such as speech, will result in you dying, after the action is resolved... even if the action would otherwise heal you. Thus, using the action to drink a healing potion won't work; you die before the potion goes down your throat. Casting a mass healing spell will heal everyone but you; you die even as you sacrifice yourself to help your friends.

... so a character can choose death instead of the potential chance of living? and on top of that have to pay an action point for it? ;)

it would make more sense if the action point allowed you to do stay conscious but incapacitated(won't rule anything out, but he shouldn't be a suicide-bomber by any means). it wouldn't make sense to use it if you seal your death by doing it.
I like it. It's not a bad system. I prefer what I was using during my own 3rd edition games however.

Players perished at a negative equal to their constitution + level, and anytime they entered the negative state they had to roll a will check each round or fall unconcious.

Players loved this as if they made the save they got the chance to quaff a heal potion or otherwise drag themselves to safety.

A shame they don't consider something like this. I also don't like the arbitrary d20 roll for survivability. You'd think tougher, more physical character could hang on longer then the elderly sage after being run through with a sword
... so a character can choose death instead of the potential chance of living? and on top of that have to pay an action point for it?

That's not what I wrote. The PC spends an action point to remain conscious, but helpless. This lets them observe what's going on, be awake. heck, I'd even let them make a 5' adjustment each round without dying. Each round they also roll to see if they get better, worse or stay the same.

However, being conscious gives the PC an opportunity to sacrifice his life with an action later, if he decides. Also, if he rolls his third "gets worse" result, then I would let him give off a dying last phrase. If the character is unconscious when he gets off his third "gets worse" result, he simply dies and gets no chance at a last retort.

Essentially, the action point is spent to see if he wants to sacrifice himself later. It preserves his options. It also gives the DM a mechanic to let a NPC give off a dying last word of advice, something lacking in prior editions.
I also don't like the arbitrary d20 roll for survivability. You'd think tougher, more physical character could hang on longer then the elderly sage after being run through with a sword

That's a good point. How about a Fort save against a DC = the absolute value of your hp.

Failed Save: Get worse (at third "get worse", you die).
Successful Save: Nothing happens. Keep rolling.
Natural 20: Get better.

A natural "1" should always be a "Fail".
i think they mentioned somewhere that regeneration is now not x/round but an ability that you could use every 3-6 rounds and gain 3x-6x hp back. i think the argument behind this was that it was less hassle for the DM to heal 4x every 4 rounds than every round.

I thought they were getting away from counting rounds for abilities?
As far as PC's activating wands or something else it's simple, the PC's speech is to garbled and raspy to properly activate any magic and most spells require some sort of complicated hand gestures. A -10 on UMD or Concentration would be sufficient. Think of a rogue misfiring a wand. It could to dangerous to try. Also trying would probably just draw attention from the monsters the PC is fighting and a disabled wizard lying on the ground would make a juicy coup de grace.

Perhaps that last gasp will count as two failed saving throws, and perhaps it still takes a concentration check.

I also don't like the arbitrary d20 roll for survivability. You'd think tougher, more physical character could hang on longer then the elderly sage after being run through with a sword

As far as I can tell, these rules are for using this in 3.5. No specifics were given on the advance to death mechanic in 4th Ed.
I like it. It's not a bad system. I prefer what I was using during my own 3rd edition games however.

Players perished at a negative equal to their constitution + level, and anytime they entered the negative state they had to roll a will check each round or fall unconcious.

Players loved this as if they made the save they got the chance to quaff a heal potion or otherwise drag themselves to safety.

A shame they don't consider something like this. I also don't like the arbitrary d20 roll for survivability. You'd think tougher, more physical character could hang on longer then the elderly sage after being run through with a sword

Ah, hey, they could always have the possibility of new "Toughness" related feats/ abilities:

Die-Hard: When reduced to negative hit points, you continue to act normally. However, you also continue to roll the d20 to stabilize and upon rolling a 1-10 (the normal "negative" roll) fall unconscious.

Die-Harder: For stabilization rolls, a 1-9 is considered a negative result, 10-18 is equivocal, and 19-20 are positive.

Die-Hard With a Vengeance: You act normally until 2 negative results are obtained on the stabilization rolls. Also, you don't die until you've accumulated 4 negative results, rather than 3.

~DD
That's a good point. How about a Fort save against a DC = the absolute value of your hp.

Failed Save: Get worse (at third "get worse", you die).
Successful Save: Nothing happens. Keep rolling.
Natural 20: Get better.

A natural "1" should always be a "Fail".

Making it a saving throw is much nicer... but I still want more

4th edition is supposed to be all about giving the player something to do, a choice, each round of combat, no matter what.

Why not give the player the choice to try and stick it out even while in the negatives... or to fall over unconcious? You can always increase the danger of dying by trying to stay in the fight somehow.
Making it a saving throw is much nicer... but I still want more

4th edition is supposed to be all about giving the player something to do, a choice, each round of combat, no matter what.

Why not give the player the choice to try and stick it out even while in the negatives... or to fall over unconcious? You can always increase the danger of dying by trying to stay in the fight somehow.

Yeah, maybe a feat or talent that burns one 'free' failure roll for each round the PC stays fighting while in negatives. So after the PC has fought two extra rounds, they fall unconscious and a single bad roll will kill them.
I didn't really have a big problem with the old system. I found that if you're fighting a big fire giant with a couple fighter levels and you got to 12HP you backed off and called for healing before you got clobbered and probably killed. This reflected, in my mind, the idea that if that giant really does land a telling blow on you, you just ain't gonna make it kid - he's too big. The damge you took dropping you to 12 HP from 112 was mostly bruises, twists, and flesh wounds that reflected your (thus far) successful efforts to turn those telling blows into non-telling ones. To my mind, however "good" you are at turning blows that would drop a farmer into scrapes, when you get hit by a fire giant in a way that knocks you out, there just isn't much chance of living through it. And, as I said, I think this may have decreased the importance and tension of the unconscious comrade element of combat at higher levels, but it also seriously INCREASED the battered and still fighting moments. Imagine that, you actually might be wise to back of and get healed before charging the giant.

But that aside, increasing the dying range is fine with me in principle, especially given that one still stands a good chance of dying anywhere within that range. I do think the range is WAY too big, first of all. I'd say something more like 10+1/2 your level or something, and the ideas expressed above about modifying it with your con are interesting too.
One thing I don't like now is that - if I'm reading this right - basically anyone not felled by a crit from a big monster is guaranteed not to die for three rounds, and even then only 1/8th of the time!

Another is this idea of getting rid of the "negative HP tax". First of all, yes giving a potion to a fallen comrade and having them not wake up is disappointing, but is it really a PROBLEM that needs fixing? Who's up in arms about the idea that somebody might be too far gone for a simple bit of magic to instantly cure on the spot? A related issue is that this also makes the guy who's got 15 HP and the guy who's got 1 effectively on equal ground when facing the enemy who does 2d6+13. They're both guaranteed to drop with the next hit, AND they're both guaranteed to come back just as easily. In fact, should the first guy take the full 25 damage (down to -24) and the other guy take only 15 (down to 0), the same cure light potion brings them both back to the same HP. HUH?

Some other odd consequences:
Fighter has 100 max HP and is dropped to 1. He can be taken to -50 before he dies. He faces an enemy who can do 25 damage - no way that enemy can kill him outright - it's not possible. With no HP-based bleed-out rule, that 50 point crit just puts him at -49, where he stays with the standard 1/8th chance of dying in three rounds. But if he rolls a 20, BOING he's back up at 25 HP. He's got a 5% chance on that first round of bouncing back up, MAJORYLY healed - far better than he was before taking the 50 point hit.
That same fighter is in the exact same boat against that 25 damage-dealer as he is against an enemy who hits for 1d2 damage. He's dropped. He has the same 1/8th chance of dying. He has the same 5% chance on round 1 of bouncing back healed. And neither guy requires any more healing to be brought back by a cure spell. (Granted, he's more vulnerable to enemies attacking his unconscious body, but how often does that happen, if his friends are still standing?)

Personally, these consequences seem possibly worse than what was problematic in the initial system. (At my table, the players didn't know the HPs of their fallen comrades, btw, so there was never anything ho-hum about the unconcsious bleeding out.)
I thought they were getting away from counting rounds for abilities?

well who knows, it was something that etched itself into my mind when i read it. it made sense from one angle, but i guess theres always two sides on a medallion. the discussion on the pit fiend teleportation ability came to a sort of conclusion that it could be used 4 rounds after the first use, then 5 rounds, then 6.

That's not what I wrote. The PC spends an action point to remain conscious, but helpless. This lets them observe what's going on, be awake. heck, I'd even let them make a 5' adjustment each round without dying. Each round they also roll to see if they get better, worse or stay the same.

ah, your suggested deaths were all personally induced. if someone came over and dropped a potion in your face it would work normally, but if you used an actionpoint to try to drink an potion of your own you would die.

well I'm still a bigger fan of "no, you're dying, you can't do much". leave them completely handicapped with barely the ability to speak. And if theres combat going on, i wouldn't expect anyone to hear his dying whispers.

then again, that might be too handicapping. i don't think there is a very good "final answer" on this topic. lets try a compromise:
[INDENT]1. use one action point for consciousness. stuttering talking and no real actions to be done here.
2. you canuse one "minor" action per turn, but it takes you one step closer to death(i think it would be boring if you could use this to heal yourself, so who knows, make it useful for something else).[/INDENT]



Plothos: remember that there are second winds and generally more healing around now than before. which most likely means that damage also might be a bit higher than before, making things a bit more risky if you waste your healing at the wrong time.
After some thought, I say...
The new saving throw system is promised to be faster and easier to use. Why not simply use it?

1.) Perish at a negative equal to half your hitpoints.
2.) At negative hit points, roll a will save to stay conscious.(Or fail the save by choice) Move is at half.
3.) Unconcious or not character takes their level in HP damage each round. This way the "Bleed" balances out no matter what level you are.

Unfortunately, you still have to worry about stabilization but that could be a con save simple enough.
We don't yet know what the 'critical recovery' rule will entail. Note that it says you wake up with 1/4 hit points. The PC might not be fighting-fit right away; in fact it makes sense for them to be dazed or staggered for a round. They're also going to be prone: standing up right away should provoke an AoO if the enemy is still next to them.

In fact, there'll almost certainly be situations in 4e where a PC lucky enough to recover should stay where they are and keep pretending to be dead!
Plothos: remember that there are second winds and generally more healing around now than before. which most likely means that damage also might be a bit higher than before, making things a bit more risky if you waste your healing at the wrong time.

Good point, but while it suggests the old system would be non-ideal, it does nothing to suggest this system is a good one.

A PC with 100 HP shouldn't be deemed to be all that much more damaged than the farmer when both are brought to the very brink of death, so it makes sense that the same amount of healing should be able to bring them back. But IF that's so, then it seems predicated on the assumption that they're more or less the same type of being, physically, and it doesn't make sense that one could be unconscious and survive several battle-axe blows to the chest from an orc while the other could not. Seriously, consider that. Farmer is dropped to -1 and an orc stands over his prostrate form and chops at him with an axe. He's not gonna last long. The fighter, though, will. I know, I know, there will surely be a coup de grace system, but that's not the point - the dead farmer and the dead fighter are simply treated utterly differenlty with regards to blind axe strikes... by a LOT. An unconscious fighter out of his armor lying on the ground could conceivably take 5 or 10 blows from a battleaxe before dying. Those same blows would finish the unconscious farmer, who's at the end of the day the same kind of animal.

I honestly don't think because of the healing and damage issuse the HP system can be made ideal without making it all but unplayable at the table. But I think we can do better than this.
We don't yet know what the 'critical recovery' rule will entail. Note that it says you wake up with 1/4 hit points. The PC might not be fighting-fit right away; in fact it makes sense for them to be dazed or staggered for a round. They're also going to be prone: standing up right away should provoke an AoO if the enemy is still next to them.

Okay, but there's nothing about that in the rules given. If that's added, it might make the rules more acceptable. I don't see how it would address many of the issues raised, however, and it would be a different set of rules. I think it's a given that we haven't seen the finished version. I'm commenting on what we've been shown.

In fact, there'll almost certainly be situations in 4e where a PC lucky enough to recover should stay where they are and keep pretending to be dead!

Is anybody denying this?
I don't like rolling 20 and poof you've got 1/4 your hit points. Its ridiculous. You take a heavy blow that drops you into negs and suddenly your all shiny again? Please! Where did this extra life come from if it was beaten out of you? Did your blood suddenly come to life and refuse to bleed anymore?

It shoulds like something that would happen in special cases, like frenzied beserks neg 200 hitpoints but still pounding away cause they got some frenzy that they just won't die. A sort of dying fight, take them with you thing. But to have that happen with anybody? Huh?

I don't like rolling 20 and poof you've got 1/4 your hit points. Its ridiculous. You take a heavy blow that drops you into negs and suddenly your all shiny again? Please! Where did this extra life come from if it was beaten out of you? Did your blood suddenly come to life and refuse to bleed anymore?

It shoulds like something that would happen in special cases, like frenzied beserks neg 200 hitpoints but still pounding away cause they got some frenzy that they just won't die. A sort of dying fight, take them with you thing. But to have that happen with anybody? Huh?

I guess you disagree with the part of the article that talked about how trying to make D&D into an ultra-realistic simulation tends to make things less fun? 4th ed is definitely going for a more cinematic, fun-over-physics type of model, which for the most part I agree with. As for "how do you explain it," pretty much the same way you are going to be explaining any of the non-magical healing powers and second winds that will be all over 4th edition.
1/2 hp is for 4th the 1/4 is to use the rule now with 3.5
Okay, but there's nothing about that in the rules given. If that's added, it might make the rules more acceptable. I don't see how it would address many of the issues raised, however, and it would be a different set of rules. I think it's a given that we haven't seen the finished version. I'm commenting on what we've been shown.

Is anybody denying this?

No, but they may not have realised it. The recovery rule can give an impression of the PC leaping back fighting-fit into the fray, like he'd never been hit, and I was just suggesting that probably wouldn't be the case.

We don't know anything more than what the article says, but I think some sort of one-round weakened condition is very likely. As for whether it makes sense to have a recovery rule, if I need an explanation, I'll put it down to heroic spirit. In practice, most parties will try to heal their fallen comrades rather than hoping for a lucky roll.

I'm also fairly confident that coup-de-grace rolls will remain in the game.
Sign In to post comments