|
Post by Scott on Sept 5, 2004 16:21:14 GMT -5
Here’s a house rule I’ve been thinking about for zero and negative hit point situations for characters. My main reason for implementing this rule is because of the serious meta-gaming that goes on when a character gets knocked unconscious. “Oh, he’s at -2. We have 8 more rounds before we have to worry about it”. As soon as a character reaches zero, or less, hit points. He has to make a system shock roll. If he fails the roll, he dies. Each round thereafter, the character must make another system shock roll. If he fails, he dies. If he makes it, he loses one hit point that round. If the roll is equal to his constitution score, or lower, he stabilizes on his own and doesn’t lose anymore hit points. Any opinions? Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 5, 2004 16:23:56 GMT -5
Also, instead of making every character rest a standard 7 days anytime he goes unconscious, I use a d8-1 to determine how many days of rest will be required. If the result is 0, I will allow a system shock roll to see if a revived spell caster remembers his spells. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 5, 2004 16:26:24 GMT -5
All of these rolls are to be made by the DM, and kept secret from the party. Scott
|
|
dcas
Warlock
Duke of Pennsylvania, Knight Commander
Posts: 481
|
Post by dcas on Sept 5, 2004 16:42:17 GMT -5
“Oh, he’s at -2. We have 8 more rounds before we have to worry about it”. I was going to ask how they might know that he was at -2, but then I remembered how if he were at -3 or lower he would be dead. A friend of mine had a house rule that the chance of death at negative hit points was x * 10 %, where -x was the character's current hit points. So a character at -2 would have a 20% chance of dying; if he survived he dropped to -3 in the next round, where he would have a 30% chance of dying.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Sept 6, 2004 10:33:54 GMT -5
I like these house rules, it gives the situation a sense of urgency. As it should be. If you see one of your friends get run through with a sword, and then he drops on the floor, you're not going to think, "he has at least nine pints of blood left, I can can go examine the lock on this treasure chest for a minute before bandaging him."
|
|
|
Post by DragonFire on Oct 12, 2004 20:39:32 GMT -5
We keep the hit points secret after a character is knocked unconcious. We just say, your character falls unconcious, that way the other characters have to hasten to his aid. We use the standard system (plus CON bonus). Characters are unconscious at 0 hit points. Characters lose one hit point per round (minute) after –1 hit points. Characters are dead at –10 hit points (plus their Constitution hit point bonus, if any).
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Jan 28, 2018 9:51:15 GMT -5
Here’s a house rule I’ve been thinking about for zero and negative hit point situations for characters. My main reason for implementing this rule is because of the serious meta-gaming that goes on when a character gets knocked unconscious. “Oh, he’s at -2. We have 8 more rounds before we have to worry about it”. As soon as a character reaches zero, or less, hit points. He has to make a system shock roll. If he fails the roll, he dies. Each round thereafter, the character must make another system shock roll. If he fails, he dies. If he makes it, he loses one hit point that round. If the roll is equal to his constitution score, or lower, he stabilizes on his own and doesn’t lose anymore hit points. Any opinions? Scott Scott, have you implemented this house rule? If so, how has it worked in your gaming sessions? Do you recommend using this rule?
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Mar 13, 2018 14:57:47 GMT -5
Here’s a house rule I’ve been thinking about for zero and negative hit point situations for characters. My main reason for implementing this rule is because of the serious meta-gaming that goes on when a character gets knocked unconscious. “Oh, he’s at -2. We have 8 more rounds before we have to worry about it”. As soon as a character reaches zero, or less, hit points. He has to make a system shock roll. If he fails the roll, he dies. Each round thereafter, the character must make another system shock roll. If he fails, he dies. If he makes it, he loses one hit point that round. If the roll is equal to his constitution score, or lower, he stabilizes on his own and doesn’t lose anymore hit points. Any opinions? Scott I'm still thinking and curious about how this house rule has worked out in play? Also, instead of giving maximum hit points to first level characters, so far I have stuck with the UA minimum hit points, excepting the cavalier/paladin UA hit point minimum = 6 (pre-constitution adjustment) doesn't seem to make sense - maybe this was corrected with UA errata? I think it should be the cavalier/paladin UA minimum hit points = 9 perhaps? Instead, I have taken the difference between the maximum possible hit points at first level, and the characters actual hit points as the maximum range a character can be unconscious and not out-right dead by a single blow. For example, a first level magic-user with less than 15 constitution has the class minimum of 3 hit points. Since his maximum possible first level hit points are 4, then a single blow taking this character to either 0 or -1 hit point results in unconsciousness. A single blow resulting in -2 or lower hit points means this character is slain outright. On the other hand, a first level ranger, with an 18 constitution rolls 2d8 = 12 + 8 {constitution bonus} = 20 hit points. The maximum possible first level hit points for this character would have been 16 + 8 = 24. So a single blow that drops this character from 0 to -4 hit points results in unconsciousness. A single blow resulting in -5 or lower hit points means this character is slain outright. I implemented this while keeping the unconscious range secret from the players. It gives uncertainty to the PCs {and if a single blow drops a character to zero or less hit points, I don't tell the exact number, just inform that the character has fallen in battle}, yet some possibility is present to get knocked unconscious in battle and not die. I will probably keep the effective secret unconsciousness range determined at first level applicable throughout the lifetime of the character, and with the DMG rules applicable as -1 hit point per round until stabilized by curing or binding wounds. Also I may add system shock checks as Scott proposed above. It is true that if a PC rolls maximum first level hit points, that their unconsciousness range is solely at 0 hit points! The character has the benefit of maximum first level hit points, yet this character is slain outright if a single blow drops the character to -1 or lower hit points! Note that all magic effects or UA special abilities, such as the cavalier negative hit points rule, supercedes the above house rule. What are all of your opinions of this proposed house rule?
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Mar 13, 2018 15:36:06 GMT -5
Using this house rule, most characters would end up with an effective unconsciousness range from -1 to -3 hit points, yet with some possibility the range could be solely at zero hit points, or in the case of a ranger at minimum first level hit points, the effective unconsciousness range could extend as low as -7 hit points.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Mar 13, 2018 16:13:48 GMT -5
I tried it for a few s sessions, thought it was too fiddly, and went back to BtB.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Mar 14, 2018 7:41:10 GMT -5
“Oh, he’s at -2. We have 8 more rounds before we have to worry about it”. "Let's go get some coffee."
Yeah, that made me laugh, because it happens. One idea to handle it is for there to be permanent scarring at around -6 or -7 which could be interpreted as permanent loss of an ability score (-1 comeliness is the obvious one, but it could be another more crucial ability -- "I'm just not quite the same, since that time I almost died."). Another is a house rule that players can't ask each other how many hit points they have once someone is fallen in battle... It's supposed to be role-playing! You can't ask an unconscious comrade who is bleeding out how many negative hit points he is at!
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Mar 14, 2018 9:46:41 GMT -5
Each player when we were playing every other day in the 80's had a large set of back ups. Trying to recall offhand, the pattern per person's stable of characters was at least 6 fighters or subclasses, at least 3 magi-users, at least 2 clerics, at least 1 thief in that order, at least 1 of each non-fighter subclass. I'm not saying there were no one character players. There were too many and they had a lot of issues and problems. I remember forcing my cousin to make back up characters in 1985 when I killed off his character that he had for two years and he flew off the handle. That was the first incident of its kind for me and I didn't want to talk about it because well I was still dealing with that on a day to day basis but thanks to my new COUSIN FLUSH SYSTEMtm I'm back on the street and telling tales.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Mar 14, 2018 9:49:35 GMT -5
So the death's door was only griped at by that crowd and everyone else had this heroic death schtick going.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Mar 14, 2018 10:13:16 GMT -5
Here was the 1989 second edition "optional rule" that these "one character player" lawyers would try to use:
and here is the AD&D 1979 version:
The 1989 Second Edition "option" above was force marched into popularity by giving it a savior angle from the harshness of the rule not in the "Zeb option bubble":
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Mar 14, 2018 10:16:39 GMT -5
Each player when we were playing every other day in the 80's had a large set of back ups. Trying to recall offhand, the pattern per person's stable of characters was at least 6 fighters or subclasses, at least 3 magi-users, at least 2 clerics, at least 1 thief in that order, at least 1 of each non-fighter subclass. I'm not saying there were no one character players. There were too many and they had a lot of issues and problems. I remember forcing my cousin to make back up characters in 1985 when I killed off his character that he had for two years and he flew off the handle. That was the first incident of its kind for me and I didn't want to talk about it because well I was still dealing with that on a day to day basis but thanks to my new COUSIN FLUSH SYSTEMtm I'm back on the street and telling tales. That's an interesting thought to have pre-gen PC back ups ready to go - I haven't tried that before, but it would take the delay factor out as inevitable PC deaths happen. Has having a big stable of back up characters led to low-level play being too foolhardy, because the players know they can just plug-in a replacement character on the fly and not have to miss out on hardly any game action in a particular session? I might start with directing each of the PCs to make a solo back-up character and go from there. Thanks for the idea, Gene!
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Mar 14, 2018 10:39:06 GMT -5
In time, I had noticed that they value the characters more as they define the differences in personality making them true characters. People who can't function like that are usually never going to be DM material. I had liked to play too so I was always pushing for DM coverage. However, my experiences playing on the street with random games run by random people still gives me nightmares. Even while there was a lull nationwide of D&D playing there was always a game of some kind going on week after week here in NYC and thats how I developed the bad habit of going to anything labeled "D&D". I've been at sessions that were like a night in a major metro emergency room.
My friend Tim (the guy with the thief character in the video on my blog) who I've been playing with since UA came out has a huge folder of characters and I have a massive death folder.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Mar 14, 2018 10:40:40 GMT -5
The classic "goldenrod" colored AD&D player character sheets had a section on the back for a will, so I think that idea of preparing for your character's death by thinking of who will inherit his possessions was always a part of the game. Often this meant continuing on with a very similar character. I remember one player with a fighter simply named "Dude" who died and willed all of his possessions to a relative named "Dude II." Cousin? Son? It didn't really matter, because for the purposes of the game he was playing as if he was the same character only a few levels lower...
I've played with DMs who always made everyone start out new characters at 1st level, but it isn't so bad if you are in a party of higher level characters and you inherit all of your old character's magic items and treasure.
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Mar 14, 2018 11:02:42 GMT -5
The classic "goldenrod" colored AD&D player character sheets had a section on the back for a will, so I think that idea of preparing for your character's death by thinking of who will inherit his possessions was always a part of the game. Often this meant continuing on with a very similar character. I remember one player with a fighter simply named "Dude" who died and willed all of his possessions to a relative named "Dude II." Cousin? Son? It didn't really matter, because for the purposes of the game he was playing as if he was the same character only a few levels lower... I've played with DMs who always made everyone start out new characters at 1st level, but it isn't so bad if you are in a party of higher level characters and you inherit all of your old character's magic items and treasure. I've had campaigns where PCs were often passively, sometimes actively, sabotaging other PCs in hopes they would die and their coveted magic items be claimed by other salivating party members! I cannot think of a time where PCs used wills to pass loot and magic items on to any next-of-kin new PCs? I have had PCs take up playing a former henchman upon the death of their PC.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Mar 14, 2018 12:51:50 GMT -5
I had a mass of the goldenrod sheets because my uncle was an offset printing tycoon with 6 (or more?) locations in Manhattan in the 80's and he saw me handing over a bad photocopy to someone as we were playing ("What is this shit you're playing? WHAT THE HELL IS THAT?") So he gives an entire paper box (like you would get at Staples or bigger) of exact duplicates of the golden rod series after I gave him one of each. So even after the 2nd 80's series with OA honor and spell sheets these remaained popular with people that I played with and I still have a shitload of them. So everyone did the "will" by chance.
At least its better than the relatives and background areas on the OA friendly sheets. I remember trying to fill those out many times and some of it is cringeworthy.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Mar 14, 2018 13:00:34 GMT -5
I’m pretty sure there’s an inheritance rule in the original box set too. We’ve never used it, but it might be useful for getting new parties off the ground.
|
|