Does everyone have PCs die at negative their CON score?
I like the idea of doing the appropriate normal damage and that damage is then how negative the "killed" person is... incase one has second thoughts about the instant kill..

I think if you die of something other than hp loss, you are just dead.Captain_K wrote:If an ability kills someone.. is that someone at -10 hp or -1 hp?
Does everyone have PCs die at negative their CON score?
I like the idea of doing the appropriate normal damage and that damage is then how negative the "killed" person is... incase one has second thoughts about the instant kill..
Yes, at -10 hp.Captain_K wrote:The book being -10?
Same for me, although I can't think of a time I actually tracked an NPC's hit points into the negatives.Aergraith wrote:Yes, at -10 hp.Captain_K wrote:The book being -10?
Monsters normally at 0 hp, though I reserve the right to give important NPC types -10.
tylermo wrote:Your efforts are greatly appreciated, Buttmonkey. Can't believe I said that with a straight face.
Not according to Miracle Max.Ancalagon wrote:Dead is dead.
Indeed. There is big difference between mostly dead, and all dead.Not according to Miracle Max.
Fizz wrote:Indeed. There is big difference between mostly dead, and all dead.Not according to Miracle Max.
-Fizz
Which day, or which book? AD&D 1e says 0 or negative is dead, and Holmes Basic says when the 'hit score' falls to zero the character is dead. In OD&D hit points are the number of points of damage the character could sustain before death (so zero of them makes you dead.)Lurker wrote: For me back in the day, it was by the book - 0 or below unconscious but bleeding out. after - 10 death.
Thanks. It's interesting, because it's not the same as just having a -10 buffer: 7 to 10 of those hp are just for the countdown from unconsciousness to death.Go0gleplex wrote:Not sure where, but it's been a rule in use in my games since '79, 1e. (edit): I found the reference in the 1st ed DMG, page 82, Zero Hit Points. This is where the -10 rule I used is from. (knew I'd seen it far earlier than 2nd ed.). Also noted as an optional rule on page 75 of the 2nd ed AD&D DMG.
That reminds me of something i did back in the 2nd Ed days. The way i ran it was once you hit 0 or below, you had to roll a save vs death with a penalty equal to the amount below 0. (Ie, if you ended up at -7, you have a -7 on your save.) If you pass, then you're still alive at 0 hit points.Lurker wrote:However, hearing about 5e, I think I like the 'death saving throw' idea of being unconscious at -0 or below but not dead until 3 con saves are failed. Though, with C&C I'd say it should be CHA not CON. I'd have to play 5e before I'd say I like it better than Tree's
I like that.Fizz wrote:That reminds me of something i did back in the 2nd Ed days. The way i ran it was once you hit 0 or below, you had to roll a save vs death with a penalty equal to the amount below 0. (Ie, if you ended up at -7, you have a -7 on your save.) If you pass, then you're still alive at 0 hit points.Lurker wrote:However, hearing about 5e, I think I like the 'death saving throw' idea of being unconscious at -0 or below but not dead until 3 con saves are failed. Though, with C&C I'd say it should be CHA not CON. I'd have to play 5e before I'd say I like it better than Tree's
For C&C, i'd probably convert it to an ability check with a CL equal to the amount below 0. I could see using different abilities depending on what was causing the damage (similar to normal save rules). I must try this again.
-Fizz
Yeah i have always found it odd that you can start at say, 50 hp, and you're fully functional until 1. Then at 0 you are suddenly incapacitated.Captain_K wrote:I like forcing a "you're nearly out" for PCs. Full Function to 0 hp. Your first 1/3 of - hp (keep in mind dead for me is -CON score) you are largely immobile (fully prone on the ground, no real strength), conscious, feeble crawl at best.. no spell casting, but you can sort of talk.. think "dying man's last words", you might be able to rummage for a handy healing potion.. but I force the combat to end here.. and yes they are bleeding out a 1/rd. This smooths the back flipping 50 h.p down to 1 hp and still going strong.. one feather blow and you're out cold silliness.
This was my understanding of HP as well, even going back to 1e. The average, 0 level human has ~5 hp or so. A fighter with 50 hp doesn't mean that they can take that much more direct damage. Rather, the increase hp is more a reflection of his ability, gained through experience, of deflecting blows, learning to anticipate an attack and minimize the damage, etc.Lurker wrote: Because of that the character with 50 hp isn't taking physical damage as he is going down from 50 to 40 to 30 etc etc etc. He is getting tired less focused less lucky and those near misses are getting closer and closer to not being a near miss.
I always look at HP loss as not nessicarily a direct result of physical damage. It is the loss of the subjective hard to define (and therefore measure) elements of combat. Luck, stamina, reaction time, etc etc etc getting worn away as the fight goes on and on.
Yes, i think you are both correct about that since original D&D, and that is similarly described in CKG chapter 17 as not representing actual wounds.This was my understanding of HP as well, even going back to 1e. The average, 0 level human has ~5 hp or so. A fighter with 50 hp doesn't mean that they can take that much more direct damage. Rather, the increase hp is more a reflection of his ability, gained through experience, of deflecting blows, learning to anticipate an attack and minimize the damage, etc.
D&D had the same massive damage rule at least as late as 3E. In 3E, 50+ damage from a single event meant a Fort save at DC 15 (i think). Fail and you're dead. I've no idea if 4E or 5E has an equivalent.Go0gleplex wrote:And what you are discussing there is pretty much WHY the System Shock roll rule was in place. Because hit points were abstract and catastrophic damage or other instances could overwhelm 'the abstract nature' of hit points. But of course it fell victim to the whole 'power creep' mentality that infected the player base.
Thanks. Interesting stuff. Though i have an original CKG, not the latest edition, so not completely sure i'm looking at the same thing. I see sections on wounds, wound effects, grievous injury.mmbutter wrote:See the hit points section of combat in the CKG (pg 314 in the latest). There are optional rules there for graduated damage impacting skill checks, and rules for dealing with massive damage.