# Is there anything I should be wary of introducing this rule for unconsciousness into my games?

3.5 is pretty lethal, and I always felt it was a little weird that a sorcerer was unconscious for the same amount of time before dying as a barbarian. So I've been tinkering with the following house rule

Characters don't die from negative hit points until they reach -10 or their ECL * CON mod, whichever is higher.

I feel like it will power up the Die Hard feat, but this is ok as that feat could probably do with a buff. Is there anything else I should watch out for that this would effect and possibly break?

EDIT: Usually I use a heavily houseruled version of random ability scores, which usually results in better scores and more interesting characters. So characters start by rolling 2d6 for each ability and picking the highest. Then they roll a final 2d6, pick the highest and can replace on score with this roll. Next they roll 3d6 and drop the lowest 7 times, assign the best 6 as they want.

This has resulted in pretty good stats for PCs, with some low stats where you might not expect them. It sounds complicated, but it usually goes pretty quickly ime

• not an evaluation of your house rule, but did you consider using the variant death and dying rules from UA? – Carcer Aug 2 '18 at 12:32
• Hadn't seen these before, I quite like them. Have you ran them before? It definitely makes fortitude more valuable – gaynorvader Aug 2 '18 at 12:45
• I've not run them personally, but I remembered reading about them, and thought you might want to peruse. I can't really judge them either way; they definitely make death/dying more mechanically interesting, but they are also rather more complex to run than the default rules (such is the case for most of the UA variant material, I feel). – Carcer Aug 2 '18 at 13:00
• I think a lot of the benefit of this house rule will depend on how ability scores are determined in your campaigns. Could the question also include that information? – Hey I Can Chan Aug 2 '18 at 14:49

Pathfinder uses a similar rule (instead of $-ECL \times Con$ it uses $-Constitution$ (that is, the whole score), which is going to be a wider area for “dying” than your rule at low levels, and a narrower area at high levels—but pretty comparable all the same. Pathfinder has no particular issues with this rule.