Fun fact about going below 0 HP: Third Edition D&D tracked that. At 0 you were staggered, below that unconscious, and at -Con Score negative HP you died.
This being D&D 3.x (3.0/3.5/Pathfinder 1e), there were abilities that extended that limit, abilities that let you stay conscious below 0 HP. I’ve seen someone play a build that was always at negative HP, with a limit of something like -300 before dying, and got bonuses for being in the negatives.
I’ve seen someone play a build that was always at negative HP, with a limit of something like -300 before dying, and got bonuses for being in the negatives.
Lmao that’s fucking wild
Totally. Third edition D&D (and its continuation Pathfinder 1e) is amazing for doing the most insane things you can come up with. So many janky combos to be had, with an utterly absurd amount of choices, and characters tend to make more build choices each level than a 5e character does in their entire career. Downside, it’s less newbie-friendly because that many options can be overwhelming. But it’s perfect for those that tried 5e and found it too shallow.
Man I wish I had the time (slash the control of my time) to play D&D again. I was on a 5e campaign and I just couldn’t keep up with it due to work. 3e sounds even better but even more time consuming haha
I don’t understand what this graphic is saying, but I agree
HP is messed up because it tries to track two different things at once. The first is how a combatant can be disabled by one big hit or a few smaller ones. The second is how a more experienced or more “heroic” combatant is harder to disable. When you put these together, you get a mess where your Aragorn ripoff can survive multiple blows from an axe.
But players don’t like being at risk of dying every time they get close to a commoner with a dagger…
