Going to 0 and lower.

[foster1941]

But my reading IS the rule on p. 82 standing "as is" -- if you don't agree with me that a character brought from a positive hp total to -4 or below is killed outright (rather than bleeding to -10), then what do you take "optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0" to mean? If a character can be knocked from a positive total down to -6 or -7 and still bleed out to -10 before dying then what does it mean that the rules specify "optionally as low as -3"? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm honestly curious, because AFAICT my reading (at least this part of it -- I realize there's some disagreement about characters regaining consciousness with negative hp) is the only one that makes any sense.

This came up recently at DF and everybody there seemed to be pretty much in agreement (at least about the "0 to -3 = bleeding to -10, -4 or more = dead" thing -- I couldn't find a second for my "regaining consciousness with negative hp" idea ).

[foster1941]

axemental said:

I don't own D&D and rarely played it, but didn't a creature die at 0 in this game?

Oh yeah, in (non-A) D&D (both the original 1974 box and the various "Basic" editions/revisions that followed, 0 hp = death, with no "negative hp" cushion of any kind, just like the PH says. Allowing characters to be revived from negative hp totals wasn't part of the game until the DMG (though per Frank Mentzer it was a common house rule in the pre-A D&D days to allow characters to be revived if their negative hp total didn't exceed their level -- thus a 5th level character could be revived at 0 to -5 hp but at -6 or lower was dead; this is the same "house rule" EGG used in his recent Original D&D games).

[AxeMental]

If taken completely alone I read the DMG p82 as something like this. The DM may opt to allow characters that would normally go uncons. (at o) to continue to fight. This optional rule can extend to -3 (from a single blow bringing them into negative territory).

Perhaps the reason for this was to add a since of realism, the guy who gets severly hit but can still swing a few times before falling to the ground uncons. After all once your at 0 you start to bleed out, so the longest you could stay awake after reaching 0 would be three rounds of action (or 3 min.). Reminds me of a deer who gets shot by a hunter and runs only to be found 100 yards down the road dead.

As I read it, at -4 or lower (from a single hit) the blow is severe enough that the creature/PC goes completely out (using the optional fighting at or below 0 rule) but does not die. To kill a creature or PC on a single hit from positive territory would require a blow that brings them to -10.

[AxeMental]

Well, ScottyG seems to agree with Foster on this. a single blow taking you to -4 kills instantly.

[Semaj The Silent]

This is one of the things I like about the internet. I can go outside my usual gaming group (with their assumptions) and learn things about AD&D I didn't know...even though I've been playing for over two decades now. Cool.

[TheDungeonDelver]

axemental said:

I don't own D&D and rarely played it, but didn't a creature die at 0 in this game? Since the PH was printed earlier perhaps it links more closely to this; however, when the DMG was printed it was the chance to "correct" something that Gygax wanted to include in the ADVANCED game (negative h.p.s). I don't think there is a single place in the DMG where Gygax says "sorry disregard this or that part of the PH as we corrected it in the DMG". The two were supposed to jive, and for the most part do. Considering the amount of jumping back and forth between rule books and inclusion of the UA spell, it just seems like Gygax wanted the rules on p82 to stand as is (as North suggests). I suppose it's another mystery that will never be satisfact. answered (even if Gygax did answer this question, he seems to mix his house rules with the ones layed out at the time, so there's no telling. Man if only Storm Crow were still around).

Death is at 0 in Moldvay/Cook B/E D&D.

[AxeMental]

And its death if brought to -1 or lower in AD&D, unless the DM opts to use the -3 rule.

Man, my players are going to hate this. But, its btb so.

[godentag]

And its death if brought to -1 or lower in AD&D, unless the DM opts to use the -3 rule.

Man, my players are going to hate this. But, its btb so.

I brought this rule as-is into an OD&D/OAD&D camaign that I started DMing this spring with a bunch of 2e/3e'rs and they went apeSh*t the first couple of sessions. I ran B2 and the first three sessions were all near-TPKs: first time the group fought against goblins, the second time it was kobolds, and the third time it was vs. hobgoblins. It totally freaked them out how dangerous hobgoblins become to 1st level characters, when the playing field is "equalized" by death at 0 hp. They were pissed as anything about getting out-witted by the others, but they have true respect for (and fear of) pole-arm wielding hobgoblins now!

The good news is that since that third session the level of play has been far superior, with the group hiring men-at-arms, loading up on long weapons for tactical advantages, and actually thinking before doing stupid stuff...

[northrundicandus]

dfgodentag said:

The good news is that since that third session the level of play has been far superior, with the group hiring men-at-arms, loading up on long weapons for tactical advantages, and actually thinking before doing stupid stuff...

Good move. It is amazing how much better players get when you quit coddling them!

[godentag]

Good move. It is amazing how much better players get when you quit coddling them!

Ain't that the truth!

And the players in my game have become less annoyingly "amateur thespian" as an added little side benefit...