If you check my comment, I will show you my current Dying condition that I have been able to test on the field.
It’s 80 % the one from XP to level 3, with a few things changed and actually used in a DND game :)
Enjoy
I take a system inspired by the video game Wildermyth, where the player gets to decide what happens at 0 HP.
Option 1: You fall unconscious. Your fate is out of your hands.
Option 2: You die, but… You might go out in a blaze of glory, or inspire an ally, but you’re dead for good. At least it’s a good death, which is better than some get.
Option 3: You live, but… You might lose an eye, or a magic item gets destroyed, but you manage to escape. You’re still out of the fight, but you live to see another.God I love Wildermyth:
Option 4: the weird curse in your body accelerates, you get a blaze of glory but are permanently changed
This is a really overview.
I play a lot of WFRP. The fate point system is similar to option 1 and the critical system is effectively option 3.
And as a GM I’ll never get in the way of option 2!
3 sided dice roll? interesting
Dice roll? No, you get to choose which one you’d prefer. Nothing random about it.
but without the mathrocks how can the deities of random chance smite my players? and what goes clickly clack?
NO MATH ROCKS!??
Uh… Okay, optional revised version. Roll a d3 (use a d6 and half it) and use whichever option comes up. If you don’t like the result, or you want more click clack throwing fun, roll again until you get the result you want.
this is satisfaction. clacky sounds of probability creating doom for the players, er, FATE, for the players. Yes. yesssss…
If it takes a half hour for a single round of combat then I will assert that you actually are doing D&D wrong. Players should know the rules for anything their character can do and be paying attention so they’re ready when their turn comes up. Combat and magic rules take up maybe a dozen pages in the PHB, spend an hour and read over them a few times to make those weekly games you invest two to six hours into go much smoother.
The DM should know all the rules. Like most homebrew I see, this is an overly complex “solution” that functions nothing like anything else in the game and wouldn’t be necessary if everyone involved actually learned the real rules. 5e already has an exhaustion mechanic and it works nothing like what is described. Making up new and convoluted rules to be used by people that take six minutes to move and make an attack or cast a spell is not going to accomplish anything but making your combat turns forty minutes long instead of thirty. I play in a game that includes seven PCs including two “lightly experienced” players and one complete noob. Combat rounds take maybe ten minutes, tops, because people pay attention and the DM actually learned all the real rules.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with most of it.
You must be a treat at the game table. 🫥
Yes, I am. When my turn comes up in combat I’m done in thirty seconds because I pay attention and know how to play my character.
Do you bitch to the other players then ? Or have you kicked then out of the table before that ?
Dying: at the end of your turn make a flat check against DC 10. If you succeed remove one from your Dying Condition. If you succeed by 10 (eg. you roll a natural 20) remove two from your Dying Condition. If you fail to succeed add one to your Dying Condition, if you fail by 10 (eg roll a natural 1) you add two to your Dying Condition. You are no longer incapped when you are at Dying 0, add one to your Wounded condition. If you have reached Dying 4 you are dead and can only be resurrected through magic. When next time you get the Dying Condition, you dont start at Dying 1, instead you start at Dying 1 plus your Wounded Condition Value.
When you’d rather be playing Pathfinder
Ye. Which I do :)
I’m a big fan of the use of a dying condition, or at least being reduced to 0 hitpoints being referred to as dying, just because it’s so clunky to accurately refer to it at the moment.
The thing I can see in yours that is perhaps an oversight (perhaps planned) is that anything that is designed to modify all saving throws such as the monks proficiency in all saves or the paladin’s aura of protection would make succeeding by 10 or more easier in a way that’s not currently covered by requiring a natural 20. (Both of these abilities currently apply to death saving throws but do not make natural 20s easier of course). Also bless, and any bonus to all saves from magic items work on death saving throws too. This also impacts the ability to fail by more than 10, making it effectively impossible without a different homebrew feature creating a penalty to the roll.
Seperatly you call it a check, which means it wouldn’t be impacted by these saving throw alterations but would be impacted by anything which alters all ability checks such as the bard’s Jack of all Trades, or more concerningly, the combination of the rogue’s reliable talent and any way to gain proficiency in it, which is basically an automatic success.
There are a few currently niche cases where characters gain a bonus to all saving throws or specifically death saving throws which is intentionally factored into the power of the feature, and makes them exciting and useful, that are either hugely buffed (depending on how you rule their use) or totally discarded in replacement to other features that weren’t balanced around this ability.
Something I do love in this is the ability to introduce the wounded condition outside of being unconscious. Imagine how scary something like a nightwalker would be if it’s aura didn’t do necrotic damage but instead just forced a con save Vs getting a point to your wounded condition.
Personally the way I’d handle this is to make dying a condition that is basically identical to the death saving throws mechanic currently in 5e, but have it reset when you gain hitpoints by any means, if then disconnect being unconscious from it entirely at a mechanical level and just say if you gain hitpoints when unconscious you may choose to instantly end the condition. This would mean everything that currently works in the game to offer a bonus to death saves remains, and in very rare cases, you may make death saving throws while not unconscious, either counting from there when you fall unconscious or dying while on your feet at 3 failures.
I’d also change taking damage while unconcious to just force you to make a threatened dying save, which is just like a normal death saving throw except you don’t mark a success if you get 10 or more, you may only fail. This means that you can wail on an unconscious PC without worrying about killing them without agency. I’d probably also make the spare medicine checks function as a protected dying save, where you can’t fail and can only gain a success on 10 or higher.
Edit: I didn’t know this was pathfinder, I just assumed it was your homebrew for 5e.
Seperatly you call it a check, which means it wouldn’t be impacted by these saving throw alterations but would be impacted by anything which alters all ability checks such as the bard’s Jack of all Trades, or more concerningly, the combination of the rogue’s reliable talent and any way to gain proficiency in it, which is basically an automatic success.
Its a Flat Check. You take a D20 without any bonuses or penalties and compare it against a target number (DC10). No traits, no abilities, no effects are accounted in that check.
Just so you know, the Dying i was listing is from Pathfinder 2nd Edition, not DnD 5e.
I realised you were talking about PF2e after reading other comments, I’m not too familiar with its rules so I didn’t recognise it.
Are flat checks not altered by features that alter all checks in PF2e? There is no ‘flat’ terminology in the RPGs I’m familiar with so I just presumed it would be altered as it would be in 5e.
Yeah, in PF2E a flat check is used when you want something to be completely unmodified. A DC10 flat check would be a 55% chance for everyone.
Outside of this case, when do they come in use? It seems like an unconventional design choice as it’s basically chance, outside of the occasional luck check or death saves, where does it come up?
I’m mostly asking as my experience is very 5e centric.
The common ones besides death saves are hindered attacks. When grappled you have to make a DC5 flat check in order to get an attack in (grappled being different from restricted, which means you’ve essentially been pinned and are unable to attack).
Attacking a hidden creature (you know roughly where it is) requires you make a DC 11 flat check.
Attacking an undetected creature (no idea where it is at all) requires you make the same flat check but rolled blindly, so you won’t know if your damage actually hits the creature or not.
There are other cases for flat checks, some random encounter tables use them for example, but they mostly tend to be GM oriented rather than player oriented.
This sounds way too complicated. It probably was the intention. Nice trolling. Doesnt help but heh.
It might seem a bit complicated if you’re only used to 5e, because core mechanics like conditions work rather differently in Pathfinder, but it’s honestly much more flexible than 5e’s system. Rather than having an abstract number of passes and fails, you have a single number that fluctuates up and down. Less things to keep track of.
You do have the wounded condition on top of that, but it helps counter the thing you see in 5e where people pop up and down repeatedly with no consequences for repeatedly being beaten unconscious.
Not trolling. Just listing how Dying works in Pathfinder 2e. And since it’s c/rpgmemes (and not just dndmemes) I thought, hey post it here.
Huh. My apologizes. It sounded like a trolling post. Sorry. Indeed it does fit here.
“I play Pathfinder”
“Nice trolling”
This sub in a nutshell
My dear simple friend, the word pathfinder wasnt mentionned. I saw a complicated ruling and thought it was trolling, not from another system.
I have recently encountered ICON and come to really like its dying mechanic. Each time a character is reduced to 0HP they become incapacitated, but stable, and gain a wound. Each wound reduces max hp by 25% and only goes away after an adventure (quest). A character can help an incapacitated character (rescuing) bringing them up and healing them to their new max HP, which after one wound would be 75% of max. Second time dropping to 0hp, a second would and new max hp of 50% of original.
It gives good longevity in individual encounters and forces caution in the longer run.
Since I’m enjoying the different rules shared here, here’s a (from memory) rendition of the Fate RPG rules on encountering lethal amounts of damage.
DM and player discuss and assign an appropriate and interesting condition that moves the game along. That condition may be “dying” or could be something more interesting.
Players and the GM can invoke the new player condition to gain benefits and make other rolls easier or harder. (The core FATE rule.)
Weirdly, this covers a lot of interesting cases really well:
- the GM can invoke “dying” to keep the dying character from monopolizing the remaining combat in un-fun ways, and make it (taking lethal amounts of damage) have an in-game cost.
- the GM can invoke the “dying” condition in other ways to nudge players to find a way to lend aid ( like granting a character “encumbered” while they carry the “dying” character around)
- the “dying” player may be able to invoke “dying” as an “I’m very motivated” bonus if they’re doing something very in-character that matters to their character
- “unconscious”, “prone”, “mostly paralyzed”, can be a useful on-and-off conditions to represent recovery rolls that go badly
For GMs running a game of FATE, I recommend watching the “The Princess Bride”, which milks the “dying” condition for interesting moments, in many delightful ways.
That’s the Pathfinder death system, if I recall correctly.
deleted by creator
Condition Dying
Not for NPCs, the goal is to keep players alive.
When hit points reach 0, the character drops Prone and becomes Dying
At the beginning of the round, we start with the Death saving throws.
Then, the character can either:
Move (prone = half movement). Cost: Free
Talking while dying. Cost = Free
Action. Cost = 3 levels of Exhaustion
Bonus Action. Cost = 1 level of Exhaustion
Reaction. Cost = 1 level of Exhaustion
It is not possible to get up.
Exhaustion: On the d20
1 = -1 on every d20
2 = -2 on every d20
…
9 = -9 on every d20
10 = death
Recovery **First **rest shorts = - 1 Exhaustion Long rest = - 2 Exhaustion
Edits following comments :
so, the -1 exhaustion on short rests is only on the FIRST short rest that they use it on. They can’t do it twice in a day. Also clarified the scaling. Love to you all
I used to run 5e for years and also use to make all kinds of house rules and systems just like this to get it to run how I wanted it to because it doesn’t do much outside of combat out of the box. I read through the PF2e rulebook and kicked myself for not switching sooner because they have a rule for damn near everything I would want to run and super balanced at the same time.
If I had more time, PF2 is on my list for a game. I do know a DM, I just don’t have the time yet in my scheduling. But yeah, I’m trying PF2 one day if I live long enough.
That’s addressing a totally different issue to what the above piece, which is about maintaining action and agency when a PC is knocked unconscious.
The up-down yo-yo of 5e is a problem but the frustration here is when combat rounds are taking a while, it’s so boring to just make one roll every 40 minutes.
Interesting concept, but I just need to ask for some clarification before I can consider using it for my players. Are the Exhaustion points you use disconnected from the condition Exhaustion, where you get various negative effects until death at the 6th point? If I read the last line correctly, you get 10 points and you die? If they’re not regular points of exhaustion, a player can just use an action to heal themselves with a potion or spell, remove themselves from combat. Then they just need a short and long rest and they’re good to go. I think this might make them too powerful in the long run. If you use regular points of Exhaustion, you suddenly raise the stakes, while still keeping the player’s ability to move half movement and talk. Otherwise you’re indtroducing another value to keep track of that might raise more questions than solve problems. Can they be removed with a powerful enough healing spell/potion?
Keep the system, but use regular points of Exhaustion instead. You get one action that’ll really mess you up, where you are able to heal yourself, but you suffer the consequences of it after. Now that seems exciting. Just my two cents.
Its my new Exhaustion system borrowed from one dnd. I always hated the 5th version of exhaustion, as its hard to remember every single point. So my system here replaces the old one. Where instead every d20 roll has a minus.
Thank you for elaborating. How’d the playtesting go? Also, you referred to a specific XP To Lvl 3 video, would you be ok with sharing the link, pretty please?
How to refuse such politeness ? Here it is my good sir :
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w_6fHrOUoXM
It went really well. The hardest part was putting my 10+ leveled players to 0 HP. After that its a straight buff to them. They can talk and move for free, the rest is optional. You could even have the rule for half the table and still working. Except for changing the exhaustion, but fuck I do not like the complexity of every stage of 5th exhaustion. It lacks simplicity.
In your penultimate point you lost me, can you explain more about why 9 = -9, etc?
At level 9 of exhaustion it means -9 to every d20 roll.
Thanks, I’m with you now
Exhaustion: On the d20
1 = -1 2 = -2 … 9 = -9 10 = death
I have no idea what this means.
Recovery First rest shorts = - 1 Exhaustion Long rest = - 2 Exhaustion
How does this interact with the existing rules for exhaustion that say you only lose one level of exhaustion per long rest? Do you have to track exhaustion from different sources separately? What is stopping the party from taking five one hour long short rests in one day to completely eradicate all exhaustion with little effort?
This is fairly broken: The dying character can just use their action or bonus action to heal themselves, teleport away, etc. and since the short rest rule makes exhaustion trivial to heal there is barely any risk of death or even a cost for going down.
I feel like this is an overly complex, not well-thought-out nor playtested “solution” trying to patch an issue that lies somewhere completely different. If your table is taking 30 minutes for a single round of combat, either you have way too many players at the table or someone doesn’t know how to run their characters. It takes some time when you’re just getting started out but eventually every player (and the DM running their NPCs) should be familiar with what their character is going to do in combat and most of it should flow quite automatically. Your players (and the DM) should be planning their move during the others’ turns and visibly displaying an initiative tracker letting players know when they’re up can encourage them to be ready on time. If someone is taking inordinately long, say their character is too indecisive to act and skip their turn, they’ll shape up in less than 5 minutes. Ban phones at the table, seriously.
I do like how your first sentence is “I have no idea what this means” and then follow up with more text saying how I’m wrong than my rule took.
If you were wondering, 1 level means -1 on your d20s.
That’s because I take away the old system of exhaustion completely.
The short rest respite is only on the FIRST short rest of the day.
Yup. A player could take their bonus action to heal, get back up by themselves. Oh no, autonomy. For one level of exhaustion that is on you until the combat ends, making you worst at everything until your short rest if it’s the first of the day, or long rest like 99 % of all problems.
You are right, I do play with people not as good at DND as me. I still play with them. Oh no.
Anything else to ask before dishing out a critic when you don’t really understand it in the first place ? I’m honestly happy to talk, I would prefer with people asking before dishing out thought.
I do like how your first sentence is “I have no idea what this means” and then follow up with more text saying how I’m wrong than my rule took.
You’re the one here advertising how much of a gigabrain move using your homebrew rules is, people are going to come with the assumption that it’s ready to use and understandable and you’re opening your creation to critique. People shouldn’t have to play 20 questions to figure out how to use your revolutionary homebrew rule, thus it is perfectly valid to criticize vaquely written rules.
If you were wondering, 1 level means -1 on your d20s.
Then why not just say that instead of the mess you wrote? Literally “you deduct your ‘exhaustion’ level from your rolls”. Also, which d20 rolls? Attack rolls, ability checks, saves, damage rolls, that one random roll your GM asks you to make to determine whether you run into a random encounter in the wilds, some of them or all of them? This is important so don’t leave your readers quessing.
That’s because I take away the old system of exhaustion completely.
So let me get this straight, it has none of the effects of exhaustion nor is it cured nor accrued in any of the ways already defined in D&D 5E? Then why is it called exhaustion when it clearly has nothing do with an already existing concept with the same name? This is needlessly confusing. Call new concepts new names.
The short rest respite is only on the FIRST short rest of the day.
And how are your readers supposed to guess this if you don’t write it out? There aren’t supposed to be any hidden rules. Besides, if you make it work literally like long rests, why not just tack it only on long rests? Rules saying there’s only one long rest in a day already exist, why not leverage that?
Anything else to ask before dishing out a critic when you don’t really understand it in the first place ? I’m honestly happy to talk, I would prefer with people asking before dishing out thought.
If your homebrew is supposedly ready for use, people should not need to ask. I’m not trying to be rude but honestly, this has a plenty of smells of a kind of “GMs first homebrew”:
- Needless complexity: That’s hell of a lot text for a supposedly simple system and you’re already leaving stuff out. The longer your rules and the more people have to puzzle things out, the less tables are going to use it.
- Reinventing the wheel: Why could this not work with the existing rules for exhaustion?
- Leaving out important details and edge cases: The unstated limit on short rests, not defining what you mean by d20 rolls, do you take a death saving throw before your action, after it or at all?
What if you rewrote all of this as simply “You can ignore the effects of being unconscious from being at 0 hp for one turn at the cost of one level of exhaustion”? You could leverage existing rules to a great degree and it would be easily understandable and digestible. It’d have minimal mechanical impact as people are almost invariably going to use their action to get more hp at which point they can just act normally. Dropping to 0 hp already renders you prone which already halves your speed or costs half your speed to get up, etc…
God dam. I know a lost cause when I read one. Let me use my megabrain to do the best thing now for it
Jesus Christ just play 3.5 if you’re going to make it that complex.
Oh yeah. Playing an entire different system sounds way easier than having this in a file that you only ever read if you get to 0 hp.
That’s literally what I’m saying - when you’re adding this much complexity to dying alone (because nobody runs 5e with just the one piece of homebrew rules), it would actually be easier to just play a system with more crunch by default and a complete rules set. It is more work for players to have to ask you/for you to tell players about each of your homebrews than to just use a system that already has the rules you’re looking for.
It’s a lot harder to get your head around the first TTRPG you play than any after, so changing system really isn’t a big deal.
Except its not complexity once you see it in action. Novody cares about that piece of info before reaching 0 hp, when you do need it you are in combat and have plenty of time to check it out, and the best part ? You can even skip it if you dont care for it.
I prefer to adapt a car that I like than to switch cars for a better result after a big time of work. But that is my preference. And if its not yours its perfectly fine too.
Lets go through the actual steps:
- Roll a death save
- choose an action
- calculate new exhaustion level (which is completely different to the exhaustion mechanic that’s already in the system)
- roll relevent attacks etc at new penalty
So not super complicated, but definitely much more complex that… basically any other way of dying. When added to all your other homebrew rules it doesn’t matter if nobody cares until they reach 0hp, because the flip side is that they have to learn another new rule once they reach 0hp.
Meanwhile though, dying has moved from a serious problem to a non-condition: there are some mild penalties for acting, but overall? You still have all your actions, just at a slightly slower, still costless, move speed. Players lose little for entering it, so are going to be much less inclined to avoid it, while monsters are now encouraged to double tap - it would be very stupid to walk away from a PC just because they’ve been knocked prone, even if their actions has an additional cost now.
You’re adding elaborate “adaptations” to your reliant robin to stop it tipping over instead of just cutting your losses and buying a car with 4 wheels. Spending lots of your time on something doesn’t make it better than what’s already out there.
You can also just move and roleplay and nothing else
Go and reread your comments. Look at what you’ve actually been saying. Here you’re reminding me it’s actually more complex than I described, after claiming it’s incredibly simple. In your past comments you flipped from “it’s easier to modify a game than learn a new one” to “actually I like putting more work in than if I just got a game that works”.
You’re not actually arguing that there are any benefits to the rule, you’re just flipping through positions trying to justify using it. Its perfectly fine to say that a system doesn’t actually do what you want and to find a system that does - there are plenty of OSR games that are very similar to 5e while adding those extra edges you’re looking for - but right now you’re adding a bunch of extra complexity that is suitable for high crunch systems, not simple ones like 5e.
