I had a question form a player last session which I'd not really considered before.

His character died, or was virtually guaranteed of doing so, having been struck down in battle and left on a Hit Point total of -5. I told him that he was on the very edge of possible salvation as a critical First Aid, healing the maximum of 6 points, would be enough to get him back to positive HPs. However, another player then asked why he could not have First Aid applied to all of his wounds (as is normally the case) of which he had three, thereby technically allowing him to reach -17 and still survive, or at least have a much better chance of returning from -5.

In the heat of the moment, I accepted that this was indeed a good question but ruled that only one roll could be made. It was the "killing blow" which was important here; the other wounds could only be healed once 1 hp was regained. Otherwise, I suggested, you could have a situation where a knight suffers ten 3 point wounds, is pushed below 0 by a final large wound (lets say a 20 pointer) and still has a fairly decent chance of coming back (11 First Aid rolls), which from my perspective felt wrong.

Of course, the heat of the moment is not always the best time to make decisions. I'm still fairly happy but re-reading the rules reveals there is nothing to suggest my player was wrong or indeed that I was right.

UPDATE - The rules do state this - p.125 Mortal Wounds "(Thus, if the character is more than 5 points negative, the wound is always fatal since First Aid never restores more than 6 hit points.)" but is that *only* for mortal wounds? What if the damaged is sustained via numerous small wounds as in my example above?

I would rule that there is a time critical urgency in this and that therefore there is only time to treat the 'fatal' wound. If stabilised, he may then attempt the others. I'm not sure, but there may be an indication of how long it takes to carry out first aid in the skill description or wounds section.

Just checked. Page 125 on the pdf. For light wounds it takes 3D6 melee rounds. For more serious wounds should take longer to dress but this is up to the GM.

However, reading the example previously to this on negative hitpoints, a PK will die if he is not healed back up to positive hitpoints by midnight. Ergo, that should be more than enough time to do a first aid on every wound on the body. However, at this stage Chirugery is also needed.

In the section talking about Mortal wounds, its states that first aid must be provided within one hour or the PK dies straight away. However, a my understanding of a Mortal wound is that damage exceeds CON+SIZ.

So if you get hit by a mortal wound you only get one chance of first aid to get you back to positive within an hour.

If you 'die' of light wounds, you are allowed a first aid roll per wound before midnight.

This seems very flexible and allows for greater survivability.

In the section talking about Mortal wounds, its states that first aid must be provided within one hour or the PK dies straight away. However, a my understanding of a Mortal wound is that damage exceeds CON+SIZ.


I think you got it mostly right. I believe a Mortal Wound is damage that equals or exceeds CON+SIZ.

Not a big difference, but signficant.

Hmm so my player was right.. maybe.. It does make for greater survivability but in my view, perhaps a tad too much. Still, Ive not game tested it. In my above example the knight did die, but that was using my original rules interpretation.

Your player had it right. You have plenty of time to recieve first aid on all your wounds.

But don't worry, players will still die. Looking at the maximum you can heal is one thing, that -17 example. But, how often do you think players are going to crit their first aid even once, never mind 3 times?
Also, remember, your players should be marking down each wound separately, and you can't heal more damage from first aid on that wound, than the wound actually caused.

Someone who took -3, -2, -17 could heal a maximum of 11 points (3 points on the first, 2 points on the second, and a lucky crit of 6 points on the last).

This rule means that fights in which you take lots of little blows rarely kill you, but in my experience it's the criticals, and opponents who do lots of damage, that tend to be the greatest source of character death. Someone who takes a 20 point wound, who has a lot of 3 point wounds, has a good chance of surviving (as long as they all occurred in the same fight, and havebn't already been first aided). Someone who takes two 20+ point blows, much less so.

Another thing: being first aided after being at -5 to -10, and surviving, means the character is most likely still in his unconscious threshold. This means he needs some weeks of chirurgery to recover, and may still deteriorate and die.

And don't forget the stat loss: if a character is dropped below 1 hit point, he rolls 1d6 on the aging stat loss table to see what stat he loses, just as if he had suffered a Major wound. If he suffered both (a major wound and hit points below zero), he rolls 3 stat loss rolls.

So it's not as if dropping to zero and recovering is getting off easy.

Hmm so my player was right.. maybe.. It does make for greater survivability but in my view, perhaps a tad too much.

My players would disagree with you. I play that each wound is First Aid-able, thus taking multiple small wounds and then one massive one can in theory allow you to get back from a fairly significant -ve total. In practise however, skill rolls get fumbled or d3s come up short or the character survives the initial crisis only to suffer a week or two of torment at the hands of his chirurgeons before giving up the ghost...

Regards
Luke

I have to say, even though the rules say otherwise, that I don't feel comfortable with that. I do allow PCs to heal every wound, but up until now I've not applied the rule when dealing with negative HPs. I'm not trying to kill my players (so I'm not worried that they won't die :)) it just doesn't seem to sit with the hit point spread of the system.

If a knight is on full HPs at 25 HPs, he goes unconscious when his HPs drop below 6. That's a difference of 19 HPs. Using the multi heal-ruling, he could then suffer a further 25 HPs or more (putting him at -20HPs or less) and still live. That seems to skew the HP mathematics. 25 HPs fit and well, 6 HPs unconscious, -6 HPs total dead. That feels right. If you were unconscious how much more damage could you conceivably sustain before dying? Surely not *more* than the amount it took to take you unconscious in the first place? The multi-heal to positive HPs would allow that. As you go unconscious at a fixed point (HP/4) doesn't it follow that you would also die at a fixed point, regardless of the damage it took to get there?

Edit - Because my maths were a tad out :)

Just to add - wouldn't it make more sense if there was a similar maximum negative total in the same way as the unconscious value is figured, say HP/4 again?

As others have said, it's unlikely to ever be an issue. I have had a knight come back from -3, but only barely. But if you want to set a definite limit, -1/4 seems like a good number to use.

in my experience it's the criticals, and opponents who do lots of damage, that tend to be the greatest source of character death.

And don't forget the stat loss: if a character is dropped below 1 hit point, he rolls 1d6 on the aging stat loss table to see what stat he loses, just as if he had suffered a Major wound. If he suffered both (a major wound and hit points below zero), he rolls 3 stat loss rolls.


That has been my experience as well, characters going down due to critical hits or Saxon Berserkers or Lance Charges. Like Darren & Luke say, Chirurgery rolls are not always a sure thing, either. Just in the last session, one character went down to 1 hit point due to a fumbled Chirurgery roll and the subsequent Deterioration. It was pretty tense.

I -like- the built-in survivability due to first aiding wounds and the fact that most (civilized) enemies would rather ransom the defeated knights rather than slit their throats. But then again, I am just one big softy when it comes to killing PKs, especially if it is against 'random' opponents.

I didn't recall the stat loss resulting from just dropping to negative hit points? I thought that was only for Major (CON: take one stat loss roll) and Mortal Wounds (SIZ+CON: take 3 stat loss rolls if you survive). But it can be that I missed it.

Finally, first aid of knights & squires in particular is by no means certain, either. At skill 10, you miss half of the time, regaining 0 hit points. And like Darren points out, you can't heal more than the individual wound originally was. Depending on the time phase and armor, my experience is that PKs tend to take a few of minor wounds (1-5, armor+shield) and a couple of bigger ones (6-12, no shield) before falling unconscious. This they usually can survive. But if they take a critical hit, that is most often a major wound, and if they are already staggering on their feet, they can go deep into negative and really be in danger of dying.

Don't forget that always when you go to unconscious, whether from one hit or several smaller ones, you get a check on Chirurgery Needed and are Unhealthy. This means, effectively, a week or few being taken care of by a physician/lady/monk. While it can very well be that the other, Healthy knights can go ahead and finish the adventure or do something else. If you try to go adventuring, you will suffer Aggravation and will likely collapse again. And heavens forbid that you should end up in a fight! One good hit and you will be to negative values, and then you are allowed only one first aid roll to crawl back to positive...

Re: Sir Pramalot's question about 25 HP knight suffering loads of small wounds taking him deep into negative values:

The way I see it, the (light) wounds you take are 'pre-weighted' to assume that you do not receive any medical attention to them. After all, if I take two 3 point wounds, I can continue on without First Aid and do not suffer any hardship. My blood will clot etc, but if I do receive first aid, the blood loss will be -less-. Hence, I'd see it more like Shock+Actual Physical Injury+Bleeding, where Shock+Bleeding = constant if not healed. First Aid gets rid of Bleeding and Shock. This hopefully helps in conceptualizing why a guy with 30 1-pt bumps might jump back up with full hit points (extremely unlikely unless someone's First Aid is 20): he basically has only had short term shock effects, dealt with by First Aid, which also prevented him from bleeding to death.

Secondly, who would be stupid enough to continue hacking an unconscious opponent blindly? Lean down, cut the throat. Mortal wound right there and then. He is dead, Jim. You don't encounter an oddity like a guy with 25 hit points taking 50 points of damage and springing up claiming he feels fine after some First Aid. And if you do... Good for the guy! I'd make it into a major part of his story that he 'came back from the death's door'. Our resident Lady player has had two characters who managed to pull that kind of 'miracle' on NPCs (who suffered a Mortal Wound, it needs to be said, not nibbled to death by ducks), by rolling a critical in Chirurgery when it was demanded by the GM to allow the NPCs to live.

If a knight is on full HPs at 25 HPs, he goes unconscious when his HPs drop below 6. That's a difference of 19 HPs. Using the multi heal-ruling, he could then suffer a further 25 HPs or more (putting him at -20HPs or less) and still live.
It's possible yes, but in practise it will not happen that often. For one, if the knight is unconscious then they aren't likely to be taking many more small wounds - but then there's all the stuff I mentioned upthread about how First Aid can go awry.


That seems to skew the HP mathematics. 25 HPs fit and well, 6 HPs unconscious, -6 HPs total dead. That feels right. If you were unconscious how much more damage could you conceivably sustain before dying?
Ummm. Lots? I think you might be surprised at how much pounding it can take to actually kill someone. Absent a direct hit on an organ or major blood vessel (ie a critical), most people lose the will and/or ability to fight (ie go unconscious) a long way before they are within seconds of immediate death.


Surely not *more* than the amount it took to take you unconscious in the first place?
Why do you say this?


The multi-heal to positive HPs would allow that. As you go unconscious at a fixed point (HP/4) doesn't it follow that you would also die at a fixed point, regardless of the damage it took to get there?
This is already in the RAW; if you go -ve to your HP total then you die immediately.

Regards
Luke

I have to say, even though the rules say otherwise, that I don't feel comfortable with that. I do allow PCs to heal every wound, but up until now I've not applied the rule when dealing with negative HPs. I'm not trying to kill my players (so I'm not worried that they won't die :)) it just doesn't seem to sit with the hit point spread of the system.

Try it as written. You'll see that it won't work out as being that much more survivable.
Players will get nervous whenever theyg o negative, whether its -1 or -10. Sometimes you can see a character is not going to be saved (he's at -20 and has only 3 wounds that can be treated, say). But often, there's a delightful uncertainty: he's at -9 and has 5 wounds that can be treated. Here's a situation where you just don't know before the first aid rolls are rolled - and each roll may be as tense as the last.
Moments like that are a lot of fun (in retrospect).


If a knight is on full HPs at 25 HPs, he goes unconscious when his HPs drop below 6. That's a difference of 19 HPs. Using the multi heal-ruling, he could then suffer a further 25 HPs or more (putting him at -20HPs or less) and still live. That seems to skew the HP mathematics. 25 HPs fit and well, 6 HPs unconscious, -6 HPs total dead. That feels right. If you were unconscious how much more damage could you conceivably sustain before dying?

A lot, as Luke said.
But also, the game isn't a perfect model of the physical world. Some elements (if not all) are there for playability. So, there's not much to be gained by arguining if it's realistic - just see if the results are believable. I think they are. Think of all those little 2-3 point blows as scratches, bruises, etc - nothing serious, they can be entirely cleaned up with a litlle bandaging and treatment. Only after doing first aid do you see the actual serious wounds.

One thing: I have many years of experience of this system. I've seen a lot of characters die, and I've seen a lot of characters injured and not die. I can think of only a couple of times a character has dropped to say, -10 or below, and survived. It's very rare, because of the combination of circumstances required to bring it about:
* You need to be facing a foe that can do enough damage to pass through your unconscious threshold and reach -10 in a single blow (say 20 points after armour):
* You also need to be facing a foe that does damage low enough to score lots of little 2-5 point blows that can be healed (remember, to come back from a -10 point blow, there isn't much margin for error: the little blows must be little enough that you can heal them almost entirely)

Just about the only fights that qualify for this are ones where the players are fighting another human opponent like a knight, get whittled down close to their unconscious level, amnd then - at the very point when any blow would have knocked them out, they take a critical hit.

When facing opponents who do lots of damage, every blow is big enough that if they drop far below zero, there aren't enough wounds to treat to bring them back up to zero. If they face opponents who do less damage, than the hit that takes them out probably doesn't take them below zero, or if it does, it's a narrow margin.

So, those rare situations where a character is far below zero and can still be saved are very rare, and worth memoralising.

I didn't recall the stat loss resulting from just dropping to negative hit points? I thought that was only for Major (CON: take one stat loss roll) and Mortal Wounds (SIZ+CON: take 3 stat loss rolls if you survive). But it can be that I missed it.


Actually, I may be using a house rule there, that I've used so long I forgot it wasn't official. I should check.

I didn't recall the stat loss resulting from just dropping to negative hit points? I thought that was only for Major (CON: take one stat loss roll) and Mortal Wounds (SIZ+CON: take 3 stat loss rolls if you survive). But it can be that I missed it.


I tried to find it last night, Darren, and came up short (wasn't in the zero or negative hit points). Either it is well hidden or it is a houserule like you started musing.

Anyway, in total agreement with you and Luke in this thread. The healing rules work, the odd situations are so rare as to be almost impossible, and when something like dragging a guy back from lots negative, it is memorable. Like you pointed out, the fact that you are still potentially healed after dropping to negative really drags the drama out, and makes that high First Aid worth its points in gold. You are not dead YET, so there is still hope.

Then more to Sir Pramalot:

I don't think I have ever seen a character come back from -HP/4. But this is usually, as Darren points out, a result of most of the damage coming from a critical dealing huge amounts of damage, or a monster dealing damage with 10d6 or more. The former case usually entails a couple of small wounds and one whopping big one, while the monster usually deals a couple of big hits. This means that you are usually facing something like 2-3 first aid rolls, and if you are at -10, better start hoping for criticals... But I don't feel any need to have any cutoff point other than what the rules provide: if you are more than new wounds*6 in negative, you are dead dead dead unless magical healing is available.

So, summa summarum... Not a problem in my games so far and unlikely to become one. I am happy with the results the rules provide. If you want to have a -Wholy Dead- (not just Mostly Dead) Threshold, pick a number you are happy with. If -HP/4 feels right to you, sure, go for it. I'd likely pick -HP. Humans can be pretty resilient.

Thanks for the inspired replies.

At first I just didn't like the sound of it. I accept all of the points made I just have a hard time accepting that a guy can come back from -20. I realise this is unlikely to happen in reality but it *is* theoretically possible. Why do I feel like this? Good question, I just do. Having that large buffer seems to trivialize the harsh reality of negative HPs. However, as Morien points out, this does make for added drama, I can see that, and I like it. I can just imagine my PCs sweating over every First Aid roll and that's what really swings it for me. I'll try with the rules as intended rather than my previous interpretation probably with a maximum of -CON or -HP/4 still just to keep my natural preference for grittiness intact.

Pramalot,

Real combat injuries are not as cut and dried as a math exceicise. In the real world people don't die from lots of small, not life thretening injuries-not unless they bleed to death. You could, for example, stab someone in the foot 100 times and they probably wouldn7t die. Thier foot would be messed up, and they would be in a lot of pain, but assuming the wounds were properly bandaged, and infection didn7t set in, that person would survive.

The mulitple first aid rolls help to reflect that in the game. You need to inflict a series injury (major wound) or worse to really kill someone, or a bunch of minor wounds of suffcient serriousness to have a cumulative effect. One hundred 1 point pinpricks just won't do it.



In my group, one guy had the First Aid family characterastic. When the time came to pass the torch to the next generation, he maxed his skill out to 20, and we immediately saw a change in the way things went. Not only was there a drop in faltalities, but there was a lot more "bounce back" as well.

just to keep my natural preference for grittiness intact.


:D
Sir Pramalot, I do believe this is the first time I have EVER seen someone complain that KAP characters are TOO TOUGH!!
:D

:D
Sir Pramalot, I do believe this is the first time I have EVER seen someone complain that KAP characters are TOO TOUGH!!
:D



Funny, I hear it all the time. Usually in the form of "He's still standaing!?! What is he, a giant? That guy is too tough!"

I don't think I have ever had the problem of not being able to kill my player's knights. My problem has always been trying to keep them alive.

just to keep my natural preference for grittiness intact.


:D
Sir Pramalot, I do believe this is the first time I have EVER seen someone complain that KAP characters are TOO TOUGH!!
:D


Yes, Greg your characters are much easier to kill than real ones!