Knights & Knaves Alehouse

-10 hit points as the threshold for death was introduced as an option in AD&D iirc and became the default way of play for later editions. I don't remember using it in 1st edition (probably because the rule is kind of hard to find), but we always used it in 2nd and beyond. My question is- why -10? In my experience, -10 pretty much equates to nobody dies unless there is a TPK or unless a monster gets a really lucky crit- at least at low levels anyway.

While I feel that death at 0 is overly harsh and too binary (you're either fine or stone dead), -10 is too protective. Even at just 1 hp, most weapons can't kill you outright. What do you think sirs?

In my group, "close" to zero (as a low % of total HP) usually means bloody and on your last breath, so we're fine with dying at zero.

Basically, −10 represents one turn of "bleeding to death". In the original version of the rule (AD&D, first edition DMG) characters brought to lower than −3 were slain, but those at 0 to −3 could last seven to ten turns, depending on where they start (this might be slightly off, as I do not have the rulebook to hand, it could be −3 is slain).

In the glossary of the DMG it is explained that characters brought to 0 hit points are "optionally" in a coma or somesuch thing. This ties in with the point made elsewhere in the DMG that being brought to 0 hit points need not mean death at the discretion of the game master, but usually should. The "minus ten" rule is likely a formalised reaction. A quick search of Dragonsfoot turns up these quotes from the PHB and DMG:

Matthew- wrote: The books are actually slightly confused on the issue. Sometimes, such as in the DMG glossary, a different version is given:

"Death - This occurs when a creature’s hit points reach 0 (or optionally, −10)." (p. 227?)

"Hit Points - The number of points of damage a creature can sustain before death (or optionally, coma), reflecting the creature’s physical endurance, fighting experience, skill, or luck." (p. 228)

Elsewhere the DMG says:

"You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character when they have played well." (p. 110)

This also accords with the PHB:

"Damage is meted out in hit points. If any creature reaches 0 or negative hit points, it is dead." (p. 105)

The likely case is that the negative hit point rules are of the optional sort.

Recall that any event that brings a character from positive hit points to -4 means death. If the character is brought from positive hit points to -1 thru -3, then the character loses 1 hit point per round until -10, and death, is reached. Also note that going beyond -3 hit points is likely going to result in some permanent deformity or handicap.

And, oh yeah, going from positive hit points to -10+ isn't all that difficult to accomplish.

Ah, that -4 bit looks to be what I'm missing. I don't think that was part of the 2nd edition version of the rule.

Don’t forget, too, that anyone healed back to positive hit points from -4 or below is going to be like Westley from The Princess Bride after he is brought back from “mostly dead”—can’t really move, needs to rest a week IIRC.

mhensley wrote:What do you think sirs?

I have a table I roll on when a PC falls below 0 hps. At -1 its not too bad but at -10, arms, legs and heads are flying around. The PC can make a saving throw to "keep fighting" which basically means he can crawl around without his missing body parts, possibly drinking a potion and such. It has lead to some dramatic moments with characters using magic items to kill the BBEG after taking a fatal wound (avoiding a TPK) or a dwarf carrying around his severed leg through the dungeon to get back to town and have it reattached.

Also, when a character goes below 0, I secretly roll how many rounds it will take before he bleeds out. That way we avoid the "oh, he's only at -3, we have 7 rounds before he dies."

Hedgehobbit - that sounds awesome. Care to share in one of the homebrew forums?

Hedgehobbit wrote:Also, when a character goes below 0, I secretly roll how many rounds it will take before he bleeds out. That way we avoid the "oh, he's only at -3, we have 7 rounds before he dies."

I like that idea and would probably use a d12. That way, the players can be surprised a bit on both sides of -10. Maybe even a 2d6.

TheRedPriest wrote:

Hedgehobbit wrote:Also, when a character goes below 0, I secretly roll how many rounds it will take before he bleeds out. That way we avoid the "oh, he's only at -3, we have 7 rounds before he dies."

I like that idea and would probably use a d12. That way, the players can be surprised a bit on both sides of -10. Maybe even a 2d6.

Actually, I vary the number based on the wound; sometimes for a lighter wound the character either won't die (a flesh wound) or will live for 2d6 hours. On the other hand, if you lose a limb you will die in 1d4 rounds.

I've been meaing to post a copy of my rules but they are kinda mixed up with other house rules so I have to create a BTB version.

Another bad thing about the death at -10 rule is that they make badly wounded PCs terrible Cure Light Wounds sinks at low levels. In a campaign I'm playing in we have death at -10, and characters below 0 lose one point per round. And so far there have been several incidents when two-three CLW-s were pumped into a single character to finally bring it up to 0 or higher, while simply letting it die and casting those spells on the others who were still fighting but badly wounded would have done much more good for the party.

Premier wrote:Another bad thing about the death at -10 rule is that they make badly wounded PCs terrible Cure Light Wounds sinks at low levels. In a campaign I'm playing in we have death at -10, and characters below 0 lose one point per round. And so far there have been several incidents when two-three CLW-s were pumped into a single character to finally bring it up to 0 or higher, while simply letting it die and casting those spells on the others who were still fighting but badly wounded would have done much more good for the party.

That seems like a good thing from where I stand. Forces players to make those tough "Sophie's Choice" decisions.

- Wheggi

Wheggi wrote:

Premier wrote:Another bad thing about the death at -10 rule is that they make badly wounded PCs terrible Cure Light Wounds sinks at low levels. In a campaign I'm playing in we have death at -10, and characters below 0 lose one point per round. And so far there have been several incidents when two-three CLW-s were pumped into a single character to finally bring it up to 0 or higher, while simply letting it die and casting those spells on the others who were still fighting but badly wounded would have done much more good for the party.

That seems like a good thing from where I stand. Forces players to make those tough "Sophie's Choice" decisions.

- Wheggi

Seconded. That's poor resource mgmt by the players, not the fault of the -10 rule.

I actually read the negative hp rule in the DMG as stating that so long as the character has received sufficient medical attention to stop further bleeding (which is undefined but typically judged that a character taking a full round to "bandage wounds" is considered sufficient and magical healing isn't required) he will regain consciousness in 1-6 turns whether or not he has been brought to a positive hp total -- that the character may well become conscious and mobile with -6 or -7 hp, and therefore it's usuually a waste to cast a CLW spell on such a character (since doing so doesn't remove the 1-6 turns of unconsciousness or week or required rest -- the only benefit is that a character brought above zero won't be automatically killed by any further damage while one who's conscious with a negative hp total will be).

I know when I initially mentioned this interpretation at DF years ago it was widely scoffed at, but I like what it does in play -- motivates the players to use their CLW to keep characters from going below zero in the first place rather than saving them up for use on characters who are already unconscious (and thus out of play for the rest of the session anyway).

Hedgehobbit wrote:Also, when a character goes below 0, I secretly roll how many rounds it will take before he bleeds out. That way we avoid the "oh, he's only at -3, we have 7 rounds before he dies."

I disagree. While it is slightly unrealistic that a character would know exactly how close he or one of his comrades to dying (0 HP) or to really dying (-10 HP), on the other hand, to some degree that sort of information is discernible. Since PC death is such a touchy issue anyway, I would rather give the players the benefit of the doubt and let them access that information. That way, you can say for the most part that PC death was due to the players’ tactical decisions first and poor luck second.

Besides, those 7 rounds are very tense and dramatic. You’ve got one player who is “out of the game” except to constantly remind the other players to “come stabilize me quick!” Meanwhile, the other players have to choose between staving off the ongoing threat of their own deaths. Those 7 rounds pass by pretty quickly!