Making 5e more dangerous [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Trask

2016-08-21, 02:57 AM

Hello playgrounders

Does anyone have any clever houserules they have come up with to make 5e a more dangerous and deadly game? I feel somewhat distant, at least in my games. Specifically a sense of more gritty danger. I do love bonded accuracy but I had a moment in a session where a guard was pointing his crossbow right at the PC and I realized that the player was pretty much in no danger even if he was hit. He'd just soak it up. Now I'm not looking for absolute lethality but has anyone come up with any clever ways to increase PC squishiness with the intent of them not just moving from monsters to monsters "grinding" them to use a rather videogamey term, and to instead think about stealth tactics and perhaps bargaining with npcs? Am I looking for too much from this game? Thanks and do let me know of any cool houserules you guys have.

BurgerBeast

2016-08-21, 03:36 AM

I am toying with a few ideas.

1. I think the magical capabilities of full casters just makes the game way too super-powered. I am trying to come up with some rules to make magic much less powerful. In the end it will probably end up being accessible at about 1/3 the current pace. It's hard to have a gritty game when people can fly, etc.

2. I am going to re-vamp the hit points, death, and dying rules. As follows:

2a. There is no such thing as dying. You are alive or dead. When your Health (see below) reaches zero, you are dead.

2b. Every character has Health. Health = Constitution Score. If you take health damage it represents real injuries. You need a full day to recover a single health point. If your health points ever reach zero, you die. (I actually might even make hp recover at Con modifier points per day and halted recover at 1 point per week.)

2c. Every character rolls Hit Points as normal for levels 1, 2, and 3. After level 3, characters gain only their constitution modifier in hit points each level. Hit points function as normal, except that any time a creature would be reduces to zero hit points, any excess damage is health damage.

2d. The DM can rule that health points are affected directly by some forms of (particularly lethal) damage. For example falling and crushing damage, disease and poison, and (if you want to get really gritty) perhaps some forms of lethal weapon damage (sneak attacks, arrows, or the classic hostage knife-to-the-throat situation).

Alcibiades

2016-08-21, 04:20 AM

The DMG has an optional rule in the DM workshop under 'Rest Variants' where short rests take 8 hours and long rests a week. It puts a serious restriction on the party's resources both HP and Spells, making combat look a lot less attractive. Yeah they can whoop these low-level NPCs' asses, but it's likely going to cost them resources they won't get back until they get elongated down time.

Some clever encounter design or changes to monsters (giving them more offensive capabilities) can quickly make combat more dangerous, too. Although at a certain level, random NPCs with crossbows stop posing a threat to PCs. If you keep scaling up everything your players are not really going to feel accomplished for progressing.

A solution to that is placing a level cap like in E6. Lower level D&D is always grittier than higher levels.

djreynolds

2016-08-21, 04:33 AM

I think sometimes we see a skewed view of the game.

With good players yes the game can be very survivable.

But a dumb player can really wreak havoc for the enemy.

I give monsters armor and armor upgrades, upping the AC has been the only viable and easy solution I have found.

I include clerics and bard amongst the monsters.

The other solution is doing what CoS has done, and making your adventures more sand box in form.

It does a few things.

It makes powers that the battlemaster has really important, like hey we should retreat.

It makes skills of the ranger more important having to side step monsters clearly out of your tier at the moment.

It makes dependence on social skills a must to talk your way out of trouble.

And knowledge skills, as to what areas to avoid.

We almost got TPKd several times in CoS just because of this.

Also I will on purpose, put in dangerous options so as lead players into other dangerous option when they avoid the first, and often not even involving monster but having over come natural obstacles, it helps to eat up resources of the players and force them to prepare spells they may never use, well because now they might.

Say a dragon lives there but to avoid him you must cross a raging river and scale cliffs guarder by goblins. Now you need water walk and maybe levitate and feather fall. And up the ante as powers progress, like it really windy, flying will be slowed or more dangerous.

You must pass a knowledge check to find out what a dragon's favorite meal is, and persuade him to let you go.

WrittenInBlood

2016-08-21, 04:41 AM

DMG has also Massive Damage and Lingering Injuries variant rules. I use them both, with Lingering Injury trigger being "when character loses more than half it's current HP".

Malifice

2016-08-21, 04:47 AM

Add +1d6 damage to all damage rolls. A different colored die.

This damage die is exploding (roll a 6, keep the result, roll again and add it on, potentially to infinity). Like all dice, you double the result on a crit.

All attacks are now potentially deadly, without affecting the bell curve too much.

Herobizkit

2016-08-21, 04:50 AM

Introduce the Epic 6 (http://www.myth-weavers.com/wiki/index.php/Epic_6) rules into play.

Put your game on the slowest xp progression, but advance monster difficulty as if they were leveling at the normal rate. If your slow-xp level 1 team "should" be fighting CR 3 monsters had they advanced normally, slap some in.

Require multi-classing. Yes, this makes for stronger heroes on the low-end but keeps them well under par in the long-term.

Give them HP equal to their CON score and that's it. Subsequent level-ups only add their Con bonus to their max HP, or no bonus at all, at your leisure.

Do not use Feats. Optionally, if doing the E6 plan, offer them as incentives once they get to Epic.

Humans only (and not those sneaky V-Humans, either). Humans are an arguably strong race but have no benefits other than +1 stats. They'll still need to see in the dark and sleep for 8 hours, for example.

All magic is Ritual Magic: with the exception of cantrips (because, hey, cantrips), no magic can be cast "spontaneously" - it all takes 10 minutes and isn't battle-worthy. This immediately eliminates a huge swath of buffs and control on the battlefield. Wands could become a caster's very, VERY best friend.

No Wizard class. NPC only.

These are all ideas and some may not work well with others; use with caution. :)

Strill

2016-08-21, 04:55 AM

Require multi-classing. Yes, this makes for stronger heroes on the low-end but keeps them well under par in the long-term.

No, it only means weaker spellcasters. You can make a very powerful martial character with Barbarian X / Champion 3 / Hunter 3 / Assassin 3 / Paladin 2.

Shaofoo

2016-08-21, 05:17 AM

I think what you need is a restructuring of priorities, slapping on extra difficulty is just covering up the real problem.

What did the players do that made the guards point a crossbow at them? I would hope that the guard had a plan more than "shoot the offender" *insert topical joke here*. Who cares about what damage your crossbow can do the important thing is to dissuade the group from doing it. If the players keep being unruly then being put in jail would be the way to go and even banishment can be considered depending on the severity, not having a place to stay might lessen the player survivability.

If you want a new rule then make it so that if you take "damage" out of combat then you instead lose a couple of Hit Die and if you can't lose Hit Die then you lose HP equal to 1/4 of your max HP per Hit Die you couldn't spend. This is a rule taken from 4e. Of course not every single bump and scrape is worth making them lose a Hit Die but rather anything very serious, like shooting at you point blank with a crossbow, could be considered.

If you don't want players to move from monster to monster then don't put in monster to monster, add traps between encounters. Also consider your party composition, it is worthless to add stealth if no one is good at it and if you want to make players negotiate a truce then you should try to show them that they are capable to do so.

I seriously don't think that making the game more gritty will solve your problem, at the very least not solve it in the way that'll be satisfying to everyone (always consider your players).

Malifice

2016-08-21, 05:19 AM

You can make a very powerful martial character with Barbarian X / Champion 3 / Hunter 3 / Assassin 3 / Paladin 2.

Lol. For one round. If you can get off surprise.

Try it during a 6-8 encounter adventuring day.

Requires Wis, Cha, Str, Dex all 13+ Gets (at most) 2 feats/ ASI at 20th. Markedly behind a single classed version of any of the classes it multi-classes into at the same level, even when doing the one thing it's supposed to do well (nova).

2D8HP

2016-08-21, 05:49 AM

Only allow the players access to the free online Players Basic Rules (http://dnd.wizards.com/node/4896) not the PHB!
Use the "Slow Natural Healing", and "Gritty Realism" variants from page 267 of the DMG.
If they whine make them roll 3d6 in order for their stats. No takebacks!
That should suffice.

BW022

2016-08-21, 06:48 AM

You have to ask the point of this. Remember that if players die, the module and campaign typically ends. Repeat this too often and players will typically stop playing with you. Most campaigns rarely make it to higher levels -- the group breaks up due to out of character reasons, the players die due to normal deaths, etc. The purpose of D&D is to have fun. Dying too much is typically not fun as it means you aren't playing.

It doesn't require any rule changes to make the game more dangerous. It is trivial for any DM to just adjust the encounters, situations, setting, etc. so that the game/campaign is more dangerous within the current rules -- add a few monsters per encounter, have additional encounters, play monsters more intelligently, give them more consumables to use against the party, give less treasure so PCs have less equipment/magic, lower fantasy setting with limited access to raise dead, play in settings which limit abilities, give some monsters with 75% hit points, add encounters which play against the PCs strengths, etc. Far easier that adjusting rules. It also gives you more control over when you want and encounter to be more dangerous. Rules changes often have unintended consequences.

The trick of any good DM, campaign, plot, module, etc. is to give a sense of danger, without actually adding danger. You don't actually want to say double the chance of PCs dying throughout every encounter in anything but a short-term campaign. There are ways of doing this, but it is a lot harder. Having PCs witness others being destroyed by a foe, limiting knowledge so that the PCs have no idea what they are fighting, limit senses (darkness, fog, stealthy opponents, etc.), opponents which face the PCs repeatedly but typically with advantage (ambushes, while the PCs are sleeping, etc.) but can be defeated if the PCs are prepared, fighting as part of a larger battle or with NPCs which help, giving the PCs some larger consumables and facing them against one overpowered encounters (it seems more scary), putting more overpowered combats in put giving the PCs some advantage (i.e. low-level PCs fight 30 orcs, but from an old tower), etc.

I find making it seem more dangerous is far better than actually making it more dangerous. If you need to make it more dangerous (for some reason -- short term campaign, tournament module, etc.) then just scale up the encounters. No need to change the rules.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-08-21, 07:00 AM

Remember that if players die, the module and campaign typically ends.

Umm yes it tends to have that effect

Finlam

2016-08-21, 08:15 AM

To make 5e more dangerous, I've used a variant called "Pushing your luck." This had the following effects:

PCs are more likely to pursue non-combat solutions to problems (like sane people)
When PCs engage in combat, they spend time planning it up front, trying to lay ambushes, etc.. overall leading to more intelligent (and sane) PC behavior
PCs actually try to avoid combat with mooks (like town guards) if they can help it
Any monster at CR 8 or above will be deadly, making them feel threatening and epic instead of just a level appropriate encounter (I'm looking at you Giants, and Dragons)
Players die a lot while adjusting to the rules, but not nearly as much after the adjustment period

Fortunately, this variant only required a small adjustment to the HP system, making it really easy to integrate into game.

In this variant, class levels do not grant HP, they grant Hit Dice. When a player takes damage, there are two options the player may be able to choose:

1) Take the damage directly to their CON score. Each time a player takes damage to CON they gain a level of exhaustion. In this variant, magical healing restores lost CON.

If CON hits 6 or less, they are unconscious, this works exactly as it does it the standard rules with death saving throws.

2) The player can "push your luck" and roll a HD + CON modifier against the damage. If the player rolls above the damage, then no damage is taken and the HD is not expended.

If the player rolls a 1 or rolls below the damage, the HD is expended; subtract the player's roll from the damage and carry the remaining damage over. If the player still has HD, they can continue pushing their luck until they run out of HD, after which, all remaining damage is applied directly to CON.

To recap:
1) No HP, damage goes to CON
2) Players can prevent CON damage by rolling a HD + CON and exceeding the damage
3) A HD is only expended if it rolls a 1 or if the roll totals less than the damage
4) When a player takes damage to CON they gain a level of exhaustion
5) Magical healing can restore lost CON
6) Players are unconscious at 6 or less CON, dead at 0

The slow rate at which players recover from exhaustion and the slow rate at which HD return make players significantly more cautious. It still allows the players to feel more badass than the town guard, and to know that could take some of the guards in a fight, but they understand that an altercation means a lot more than just a few easily replaceable HP gone: it could make their next encounter a fatal one.

It keeps the game feeling epic after level 6 when players are fighting fantasy monsters from legend and they're actually a threat. It also helps the PCs to act more .... like people. They tend to think of creative solutions first rather than just resort to violence and be stabbed/shot/seared with fire/electrocuted just to take the shortest and most violent path to the goal.

I've enjoyed the variant a lot.

Erys

2016-08-21, 08:27 AM

I do love bonded accuracy but I had a moment in a session where a guard was pointing his crossbow right at the PC and I realized that the player was pretty much in no danger even if he was hit. He'd just soak it up.

In situations like this, allow an 'aim' feature where if someone has a weapon trained on someone else and does fire, it auto crits on a hit. Maybe even allow it to do max damage too, as a matter of principle. The PC may still 'soak it up', but they will likely not haphazardly stink eye threatening armed guards anymore.

Bring back 3.5 -1 to -9 hitpoints with bleeding; death at -10.

MrStabby

2016-08-21, 08:51 AM

I wouldn't mess around with the fundamental rules too much (at first, if you need to then do go for it) but there is a lot that can be done with some revised encounter design that doesn't actually make the game that much harder.

Firstly not all encounters have to be killers, so don't worry is some are low risk of death.

1) Use some enemies that can kill outright. Intelect devourers, gibbering mouthers, mind flayers etc..

2) Use hostile environments. A fight in a furnace that deals 1 fire damage per round means that you are going to lose those death saves pretty fast. A fight underwater means unconsciousness has more risks.

3) Underwater doesn't just mean an extra hazard from drowning. It is also pretty difficult to cast spells with a vocal component if you can't breath. Healing word no longer bounces team-mates back into the fight.

4) Area of effect spells work wonders. Going unconscious isn't too big an issue but it becomes much more scary if a fireball aimed at a team mate will collaterally fail you a death save.

5) Have effects that split the party. If the cleric is grappled and dragged away then its harder to heal. If a current in the river scatters the players along the river bank in hostile territory then there is less support.

6) Use some enemies with enduring damage. Fire elemental ignite attacks are a good example, especially if the PCs have met this enemy before. They take fire damage each turn until someone takes an action to extinguish them - and with no action and failing a death save per turn they will need some help. If the fire elementals are using their actions to grapple the PCs whilst they immolate them then there is real risk. Poisoned attacks, bleeding damage and so on are all things that add to the risk.

Hopefully this can up the lethality, or at least add a very real risk without your players feeling the rules are inconsistent. Of course it doesn't up the risk of they guy with the crossbow - that probably does need some rule changes.

For that, maybe some rule on aimed shots - if you take an action to aim and prepare a shot against a target not defending themselves (so threats in the street, assassinating an unsuspecting target etc.) you can treat them as paralysed - advantage to hit and automatic critical. Not world changing but a bit of an edge. Furthermore I would maybe triple the dice on a critical rather than double. This adds an element of risk to encounters at a higher level. The range of a lucky hit being able to seriously inconvenience you is then a bit bigger.

Tanarii

2016-08-21, 09:20 AM

but I had a moment in a session where a guard was pointing his crossbow right at the PC and I realized that the player was pretty much in no danger even if he was hit. He'd just soak it up.
Should have pointed out to the player that if she got shot in the face at point blank range no amount of Hit Points would save her. She'd be dead.

Edit: I realized I'm making a pretty huge assumption about the situation as soon as I hit post. If the PC was in full armor (or protected by appropriate defensive magic), or at a range where missing wouldn't basically be impossible, then they might have a chance to live. Possibly quite a good one. But the way you described it made me think there was no reasonable chance of survival. But you were still planning to apply the abstract game mechanics intended for resolving a combat situation to this situation despite that.

If a sleeping character gets their throat cut, they're dead. No matter how many hit points they have.

Shaofoo

2016-08-21, 09:24 AM

Just remember, there are worse things than death (Some players would rather die a thousand deaths than play with a gimped character, and not necesarily mechanically gimped but even just socially gimped).

Malifice

2016-08-21, 09:32 AM

If a sleeping character gets their throat cut, they're dead. No matter how many hit points they have.

As someone who has previously been a stickler for RAW, thats not true. A sleeping (incapacitated) PC who gets attacked by a knife weilding killer recieves an attack (with advantage) which (if it hits) is an automatic critical hit.

Redshirts with knives cant kill sleeping heroes of legend. Heck; not even falls from 20 storey buildings can kill heroes of legend. They have a nasty tendency to be saved by the luck element of thier hit points. The higher the HP, the more luck they have with which to wake up at the last second, recieve a prohetic dream from their Gods to wake up or turn at right moment, have the Assasin slip at the wrong moment, or land on a conveniently placed cart full of straw.

You can change that RAW if you want, but you're devaluing a martial PCs core class feature (high HD).

Why is it always martials that suffer from the guy in the gym fallacy?

Zman

2016-08-21, 09:38 AM

Guard points a crossbow at the character, think of it like an action movie where a Mook bad guy points a gun at the hero, you know the hero isn't going to die. The Mook pulls the trigger, narrowly misses and may not love to regret it. What happened? The Mook fired, probably "hit" and dealt hit point damag, and it gets fluffed as hit points are abstract, as being a narrow miss or plot armor.

Now, making things more deadly...

When dropped to 0HP, suffer one level of exhaustion. Adidas a penalty for being dropped, even magical healing doesn't put the spring back in your step, exhaustion is cumulative and can really take its toll.

No full healing on long rest. Make them use their hit dice, and you only recover half hit dice so battle can be cumulative. Eventually with magical healing it can be tough to keep everyone full. And if they always burn spell slots of healing at day's end, toss a rough midnight encounter at them that they don't have spell slots for and interrupt their recovery for the next day.

I also add a breather which is a 30s single hit die heal in between short rests. I also use a 5 minute short rest to heal hit dice. Also a hard cap of two short rests per day.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-08-21, 09:48 AM

As someone who has previously been a stickler for RAW, thats not true. A sleeping (incapacitated) PC who gets attacked by a knife weilding killer recieves an attack (with advantage) which (if it hits) is an automatic critical hit.

This is only true under the premise that not only must all situations involving weapons and bodily harm be resolved using the combat system, with all that entails in terms of modelling time, actions and injury, but also that the DM cannot make special adjudications within that system. Which seems unreasonable to me. But I can understand why many would want to play that way.

Tanarii

2016-08-21, 09:59 AM

As someone who has previously been a stickler for RAW, Hey! I resemble that remark! :smallbiggrin: :smallcool:

thats not true. A sleeping (incapacitated) PC who gets attacked by a knife weilding killer recieves an attack (with advantage) which (if it hits) is an automatic critical hit.Those are the abstract rules for a combat situation, if the DM so chooses to invoke them by designating it a combat situation. There is no absolute requirement to invoke them just because a character is potentially in harms way. Any more than the DM is required to set a DC and have a player roll an ability check before determining if something happens.

I'll agree in many cases, it's a prett **** thing to do. But IMO it's a **** thing to do that a player ignoring a crossbow pointed at his face, with no chance to miss, deserves. YMMV.

Redshirts with knives cant kill sleeping heroes of legend.That makes a pretty big assumption about the PCs. Admittedly, a somewhat justified one. If that's the kind of campaign you're playing, go for it.

Why is it always martials that suffer from the guy in the gym fallacy?How are Martials suffering again? And why is it the guy at the gym fallacy? Pretty much any character of 3rd level or higher has the HPs to survive combat resolution mechanics of a basic crossbow attack. That doesn't mean they have the ability to survive being *shot in the face* with a crossbow, regardless of class.

Edit: fix quotes

MrStabby

2016-08-21, 10:05 AM

Gignere

2016-08-21, 10:14 AM

As someone who has previously been a stickler for RAW, thats not true. A sleeping (incapacitated) PC who gets attacked by a knife weilding killer recieves an attack (with advantage) which (if it hits) is an automatic critical hit.

Redshirts with knives cant kill sleeping heroes of legend. Heck; not even falls from 20 storey buildings can kill heroes of legend. They have a nasty tendency to be saved by the luck element of thier hit points. The higher the HP, the more luck they have with which to wake up at the last second, recieve a prohetic dream from their Gods to wake up or turn at right moment, have the Assasin slip at the wrong moment, or land on a conveniently placed cart full of straw.

You can change that RAW if you want, but you're devaluing a martial PCs core class feature (high HD).

Why is it always martials that suffer from the guy in the gym fallacy?

The RAW only applies to combat situations a DM is free to rule outside of combat that a crossbow to the face = death, or throat getting slit in sleep is a coup de grace. Otherwise you get into silly situations like described by the OP.

Tanarii

2016-08-21, 10:19 AM

In a game like this, with rules for stabbing paralysed/incapacitated people, I will probably use them for when a player wishes to stab a paralysed/incapacitated enemy.

Some people might not, but I would class a situation where a player is attacking an enemy with a knife as a "combat situation".
Damn you and Malifice for making me want to reach for more ridiculous counter-arguments!

Seriously though, you both do make some decent points. But if the goal is "PCs can't just ignore a dangerous situation like a crossbow pointed right at you", which is exactly what the OP wants, you have three choices:
1) ignore that's what you want and run the rules
2) modify the rules in a complex way that may make things overly lethal in a combat situation
3) decide the abstract combat/damage resolution mechanics don't apply in obviously lethal situations

The last choice will involve direct and clear house rules in all likelihood. For example, you'll want to house rule the damage for falling rule to completely ignore it and say 'nope you're just dead' in some situations.

Edit: this post is an attempt to avoid totally derailing the thread. So yeah, both you and Malifice are right. You win RAW. But let's look at how to work around RAW to accomplish the OPs goal now.

My suggestion is just to hand-wave it when appropriate. This may not go over well with some players though, so again I'll say YMMV.

R.Shackleford

2016-08-21, 10:30 AM

Malifice

2016-08-21, 10:49 AM

Those are the abstract rules for a combat situation, if the DM so chooses to invoke them by designating it a combat situation.

The rules for damage and so forth are internally consistent, including falling into lava and from great heights. If I accept your interpretation, a knife from a commoner against a sleeping person is more deadly than a fall into a lake of lava, and not only cant I find any rule to support your interpretation, it actually contradicts rules that state the exact opposite.

Plently of people wake up/ survive a knife in the dark while sleeping. Cant say the same thing about falling into a lake of lava.

It looks to me from a reading of the rules in entirety that the DM would have to choose to invoke an internally inconsistent ruling to rule 'insta death' from a knife in the dark.

How are Martials suffering again? And why is it the guy at the gym fallacy? Pretty much any character of 3rd level or higher has the HPs to survive combat resolution mechanics of a basic crossbow attack. That doesn't mean they have the ability to survive being *shot in the face* with a crossbow, regardless of class.

Martials suffer because high HP and high HD are a core class feature of Martials. It is one of the things that lets them do epic stuff like miraculously survive a fall into a volcano, or from a great height, or wake up/ roll over in their sleep at the exact right moment to thwart an assasins blade. Where lesser men (and wizards) die, they do something awesome and stay alive.

In this case, to duck/ dodge/ block the crossbow bolt fired at them from a redshirt. Or roll over at the last second in their bed as the redshirts dagger plunges into the pillow (causing them to lose HP) waking them up and causing a struggle.

Barbarians get double the HP of Wizards. Removing the plot immunity and luck that these high HP represent is removing Conan or Kirks ability to survive where Redshirts and non important mooks die. These abstract 'hit points' represent their ability to survive against the odds by virtue of being the main characters (or at the very least important ones) in the story.

If it wasnt a redshirt trying to off you, it'd be an important NPC. Like an assasin (who deals 80 damage via a dagger in the dark and not 2d4) or someone even deadlier. Like Khan. Who (spolier alert) pulled it off twice.

Khaaaaaaan!

Re: Guy in the Gym fallacy, its because youre looking at damage in isolation, and thinking 'what would this do to the guy in the gym'. He might die from a fall into a volcano, and redshirts always do, but heroes often dont. Saying 'a fall into lava kills you' is you saying what it would do to the guy in the gym or a redshirt, not what happens when it happens to Spock.

When Spock falls into a volcano when activating a cold fusion device, he doesnt die. He miraculously survives by landing on a rocky outcrop:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeGBFWYYcP4

Spock lost a ****load of HP falling into a river of lava there. Luckily he's a PC with decent HP. His suit probably gives him resistance so that helps as well. The DM ruled he landed on a rocky outcrop (saved by an insane amount of 'luck' - represented by his high HP). He crosses off 70 hit points, thanks the heavens he has a high Con and good HD, and the story goes on. I think you and I both know what would have happened if a few Redshirts were dangling over that volcano with him. Their 10 HP wouldnt have saved them from the 20d12 damage, and they would have fallen straight in the lava and be dead.

HP are abstractions. It doesnt mean your description of how the PC survives damage that would vaporise a commoner needs to be. Dont jip your heroes of important class features. People play Fighters (and Barbs) for those high HD. Depriving a high level Martial of his (earned) class feature in high HP/ HD is like arbitrarily depriving a Wizard of his spells. He's the fighter. He luckily survives falls in volcanes, and knives in the dark, and fights with giants weilding 20 tonne swords, and still gets back to the tavern in time to mack on the tavern wench and tell tales of his glories.

BurgerBeast

2016-08-21, 11:10 AM

I'm with Tanarii.

If you sneak up to a character and slash his throat, he dies. If you want a game where that's not true, that's your prerogative. In my game, falling into lava doesn't do hp damage. It kills you. Falling from a high height and just brushing it off as a bag of hp damage? No. You die or break your body. If I wanted nonsensical abstractions, I'd play a video game. Once you have a knife to someone's throat, any attempt to escape can be resolved as an opposed skill check, where failure means death. The player still has a choice.

All of this assumes you prefer gritty. If you want to play where your players are the stars of a movie with plot armour, and you find that fun, go for it. I personally hate it. That doesn't make me right.

Tanarii

2016-08-21, 11:21 AM

All of this assumes you prefer gritty. If you want to play where your players are the stars of a movie with plot armour, and you find that fun, go for it. I personally hate it. That doesn't make me right.Pretty sure my view is strongly influenced by my moving more and more to playing D&D from the perspective of 'PCs are just another adventurer trying to survive in a dangerous environment, and if they're very smart or very lucky, come out alive and rich and famous' . And further from 'PCs are the protagonists of their own story.'

The one thing I have to admit to is that as a player, it sucks if you think there's a rules resolution for a thing, and it's ignored. If you're going to DM 'hey, if it kills you it kills you, there's no rules or plot armor for obvious death' you need to do two things:
1) Warn the players before the game begins. Because in an era of CaS and narrative plot armor, and an assumption that players are heroes of their own story, you can't assume they'll be thinking otherwise.
2) telegraph the hell out of instant death situations. Or just directly point it out. "You realize if the guard pulls the trigger, you're taking a crossbow bolt to the face and dying, right?"

Malifice

2016-08-21, 11:23 AM

If I wanted nonsensical abstractions, I'd play a video game.

Dungeons and Dragons bro. I dont want to get too existentialist on you, but the whole game is an abstraction. Involving dragons and elves and hit points and dice.

Wizard and Fighter fall 100 feet. You let the Wizard use (class feature) magical spell to survive fall. You deny Fighter (class feature) high HD to luckily survive by getting snared on a tree.

Sounds fair.

All of this assumes you prefer gritty. If you want to play where your players are the stars of a movie with plot armour, and you find that fun, go for it. I personally hate it.

Because who likes Star Trek, Star Wars, Comics, Novels, Anime and Movies where the heroes are.. well Heroic, and regularly survive falling into volcanoes, fighting dozens of baddies, wrestling with demons, saving the galaxy, crashlanding starships onto planets, or doing heroic and awesome stuff?

I like playing games that emulate that kind of stuff. If I wanted gritty real life, I'd do my taxes.

Tanarii

2016-08-21, 11:25 AM

Am I looking for too much from this game? Thanks and do let me know of any cool houserules you guys have.

Dungeons and Dragons bro. I dont want to get too existentialist on you, but the whole game is an abstraction. Involving dragons and elves and hit points and dice.

&

I like playing games that emulate that kind of stuff. If I wanted gritty real life, I'd do my taxes.
So your answer to the OP is yes, he's looking for too much from his this game?

R.Shackleford

2016-08-21, 11:29 AM

Oh, forgot to add.

Playimg D&D stealth with Splinter Cell Blacklist type rules is fun as hell and makes for a more realistic game.

It also leads to armor being changed a bit as no one wears metal.

Instead of a yes/no did enemies detect a PC it is more of the degrees of detection.

PC Stealth v Enemy Perception

Stealth > Perception: No change

Stealth < Perception: 1st time the enemy is intrigued and goes looking.

Stealth < Perception. 2nd time the enemy calls for backup to search.

Stealth < Perception. 3rd time it's a fight.

If the PC is ever in full sight of the enemy then it counts as 3rd time unless they don't think the PC is a threat (disguised).

After a round or two the enemy goes back to normal mode and thinks that it was just a rat or something. Some enemies will have different personalities. Beh9lders for example wouldn't stop looking till something was found.

I might make some formal rules for a Splinter Cell 5e Game.

Malifice

2016-08-21, 11:38 AM

So your answer to the OP is yes, he's looking for too much from his this game?

Personally, If you wanted gritty realism, then I'd avoid DnD. Dig up Rolemaster or something. Maybe early WFRP. Youre trying to force a round peg into a square hole by forcing DnD to be something it wasnt built to be. It contains a ton of assumptions (in everything from HP, to encounter building, to CRs to everything).

If you wanted to go down that path, avoid arbitrary rulings that punish a single class (or group of classes like 'martials') and include everyone. If you wanted to reduce HP (for example) give d6 HD classes 1 HP per level, d8's 2 HP and so forth. Use average HP at 1st (instead of max). Have one failed death save = death, and have PCs die at - Con HP.

Impose a rule that when knocked down to 0 HP (but not killed outright) you can choose to remain up (and on 1 HP) but cop a roll on the lingering injuries chart. Useable 1/ short rest. Impose a level of exhaustion when raised from 0 HP. Finally impose the 'gritty realism' rule from the DMG (it slows down exhaustion recovery and healing in addition to everything else).

For extra giggles allow all damage dice to be open ended and exploding die. Or just play with this rule all the time (any hit can drop you at any time).

Finally, only give the PCs 20 points to spend on stats at 1st level.

Sit back and watch the carnage.

Tanarii

2016-08-21, 11:55 AM

Personally, If you wanted gritty realism, then I'd avoid DnD. Dig up Rolemaster or something. Maybe early WFRP. Youre trying to force a round peg into a square hole by forcing DnD to be something it wasnt built to be. It contains a ton of assumptions (in everything from HP, to encounter building, to CRs to everything).You may or may not be correct that modern D&D, or 5e in particular, wasn't built to be gritty in "instant death" ways.

But classic gygaxian D&D was. He even made statements saying effectively the same thing I did: if someone slits your throat in your sleep, you are dead. HPs were introduced as a rule for resolving combat between actively fighting parties. Of course, even back then the west-coast players hewed closer to your view: heroes should be reality-bendingly heroic with plot-armor-like defenses. (Edit: and also your view that rules were needed to adjudicate 'obvious' instant death scenarios, as opposed to DM adjudication.)

(I'm assuming you meant "this edition", but pointing out that this was in no way an assumption of an original developer of the game.)

Malifice

2016-08-21, 12:11 PM

You may or may not be correct that modern D&D, or 5e in particular, wasn't built to be gritty in "instant death" ways.

But classic gygaxian D&D was. He even made statements saying effectively the same thing I did: if someone slits your throat in your sleep, you are dead. HPs were introduced as a rule for resolving combat between actively fighting parties. Of course, even back then the west-coast players hewed closer to your view: heroes should be reality-bendingly heroic with plot-armor-like defenses. (Edit: and also your view that rules were needed to adjudicate 'obvious' instant death scenarios, as opposed to DM adjudication.)

(I'm assuming you meant "this edition", but pointing out that this was in no way an assumption of an original developer of the game.)

I actually cranked out an OSR RPG recently (Dragon Warriors, an absolute gem of a game if you can get your hands on it) and the original adventures (which are among the greatest ever, and part of one of the first 'adventure paths' I can recall being written) were littered with 'save or die' type death traps.

Ironically the games tagline was 'Where life and death are but a dice roll away!'

I recall them fondly back in the day, but running them now just feels overly punishing on players. Rather than explore the world around them, they 'turtle in' and are too scared to interact with things around them for fear of the gotcha moment, and their whole character being perma killed (which still happened by sheer force of volume).

My fix was to implement 'fate points' (akin to WHFRP) that they could spend as a form of plot armor to stay alive. The game (and story) improved dramatically afterwards.

Dont get me wrong; been playing with gritty OSR and games like Rolemaster or Cyberpunk 2020 (Friday night Firefight anyone?) and so forth most of my life, where one bad roll = death at any time. I just find that the payoff you get from such games (heightend fear of death) isnt worth the suck factor of PCs dying all the time, and consequently being too scared to interact with the world around them. You also have the risk that any encounter could mean a campaign smashing TPK or the meaningless death of a well played out PC (which even Gygax was opposed to). It all adds up to providing the PCs some form of plot armor anyway, either via a mechancial 'fate points' type tack on, or via simply fudging results (in which case, why have the gritty realism anyway).

Increasing lethality rarely increases the fun or staying power of a game. You need it present of course, but arbitrarily killing PCs 'because' or ramping up the odds of insta death no save rarely achieve anything condusive to a fun evening or an enjoyable campaign.

Each to their own though.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-08-21, 12:38 PM

Increasing lethality rarely increases the fun or staying power of a game. You need it present of course, but arbitrarily killing PCs 'because' or ramping up the odds of insta death no save rarely achieve anything condusive to a fun evening or an enjoyable campaign.

First let me say Dave Morris is brilliant and we probably should all worship at his altar or something. But this doesn't sound exactly like what we were talking about.

If a DM says "The guard points his crossbow squarely at your face" expecting/hoping for the character to submit or stand down, and the player responds with "Screw that, I've got hit points", then obviously there are clashing assumptions at play that should be talked over in some way besides deciding whether it violates RAW if the DM were to narrate an instakill involving weapons. But in any case, I don't think it does.

Fflewddur Fflam

2016-08-21, 01:12 PM

Go old school, zero h.p. equals death. If that is too hardcore for you, you could always make it so you only get one death saving throw when unconscious instead of three.

Shaofoo

2016-08-21, 01:14 PM

BurgerBeast

2016-08-21, 01:44 PM

Edit: put in a spoiler because only obliquely relevant]

Dungeons and Dragons bro. I dont want to get too existentialist on you, but the whole game is an abstraction. Involving dragons and elves and hit points and dice.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. If you read what I wrote, you'll notice that I said "nonsensical abstractions," not simply "abstractions." Fantasy, on its own, does not imply nonsensical.

Wizard and Fighter fall 100 feet. You let the Wizard use (class feature) magical spell to survive fall. You deny Fighter (class feature) high HD to luckily survive by getting snared on a tree.

It's not a class feature of fighters to get stuck in trees. Especially if there aren't any trees. Also, nothing about having high hp suggests the ability to survive falls by getting stuck in trees.

Because who likes Star Trek, Star Wars, Comics, Novels, Anime and Movies where the heroes are.. well Heroic, and regularly survive falling into volcanoes, fighting dozens of baddies, wrestling with demons, saving the galaxy, crashlanding starships onto planets, or doing heroic and awesome stuff?

I guess you never read what I wrote at all, then (despite quoting me).

I like playing games that emulate that kind of stuff. If I wanted gritty real life, I'd do my taxes.

Oh, yeah. So if anyone likes gritty fantasy, they should stop reading it and start doing taxes for the same experience. Man, you're so cool. Your preference for a particular type of fantasy makes you so much cooler than those others. Seriously, those others obviously like to do taxes because they don't like what you like. I wish I liked different things so I could be as cool as you, with those cool things you like that make you so cool. I'll start working on stopping liking what I like today. Maybe with some effort I'll learn to like the cool things that you like.

Personally, If you wanted gritty realism, then I'd avoid DnD.

This appears to be all you had to say.

I think you guys are looking at this the entirely wrong way.

You seem to be more preocupied to make crossbow pointing matter than what I think is the bigger picture, keeping people in line. You guys seem to think that the crossbow is supposed to be the most dangerous aspect of the encounter and not say the guard holding the crossbow who wields an undetermined amount of power. Who cares if even the Wizard can shrug off a bolt to the chest and still keep on ticking, the worst part is that now the guard is now hostile towards the players and even if the players can quickly dispatch the guard with little resistance if the town isn't some evil town then they should suffer some consequences if not now then down the line. Isn't "the evil group has slaughtered the town guard and we need you to help us" a common plot hook, maybe the PCs will be facing roving packs of adventurers soon now that they are branded as the evil guys.

I really wonder what caused the guard to aim up a loaded crossbow to the player, was the player being disruptive or was the guard a corrupt guard and the players digging in too much? I seriously don't think making crossbows deal 1000 damage out of combat is going to fix the problems of players being disruptive.

Yeah, you've got a good point here. There are better ways for a guard to threaten the PC with death (i.e. ways that actually can kill the PC). But I think that draws an important distinction to the OP's point. The OP wants a world where such threats are deadly, not a world where you have to take more severe measures to achieve such a threat.

In short: if a knife to the neck is not deadly enough, you can either: (1) recognize this and not use NPCs that behave in such ridiculous ways, since anyone living in such a world would recognize this. (2) make the knife a lethal threat, by the rules.

I personally think that solution (1) leads to ridiculous games that messes with my ability to "get into them." The more closely the fiction reflects reality, the easier it is for the players to role-play because they don't have to spend effort learning how the world works. They can just rely on their own experiences. Just a personal preference that is apparently shared by the OP.

Sigreid

2016-08-21, 02:10 PM

I'm afraid that's the nature of a game where hit points represent your ability to defend yourself with skill. You might be happier with one of the systems where hit points are based on your physical attributes and skills level up to represent your ability to protect yourself. Runequest and GURPS come to mind.

Trask

2016-08-21, 02:30 PM

I think you guys are looking at this the entirely wrong way.

You seem to be more preocupied to make crossbow pointing matter than what I think is the bigger picture, keeping people in line. You guys seem to think that the crossbow is supposed to be the most dangerous aspect of the encounter and not say the guard holding the crossbow who wields an undetermined amount of power. Who cares if even the Wizard can shrug off a bolt to the chest and still keep on ticking, the worst part is that now the guard is now hostile towards the players and even if the players can quickly dispatch the guard with little resistance if the town isn't some evil town then they should suffer some consequences if not now then down the line. Isn't "the evil group has slaughtered the town guard and we need you to help us" a common plot hook, maybe the PCs will be facing roving packs of adventurers soon now that they are branded as the evil guys.

I really wonder what caused the guard to aim up a loaded crossbow to the player, was the player being disruptive or was the guard a corrupt guard and the players digging in too much? I seriously don't think making crossbows deal 1000 damage out of combat is going to fix the problems of players being disruptive.

The player was snooping around the property of a nobleman. And you're right, making crossbows do a million damage isn't the answer, nor is it what I want. But in the same vein, to make these guards a threat for players I'm going to have to either throw tons of guards at them or arbitrarily make guards much more powerful than they're supposed to be. My players are level 7 and they could mow down an entire city of guardsmen given the prep. Thats just not the kind of game I think I'm looking for. I want PCs to be special, to be heroes. But I dont want them to be so far removed from the world that the threat of the city guard is akin to a rat infestation. I think bonded accuracy goes a long way to helping this (5e is much better at this than PF, which I used to play) but it just doesnt go far enough in my eyes. I'm hoping that with a few simple houserules this can be remedied without having to change the entire game.

NNescio

2016-08-21, 02:35 PM

The player was snooping around the property of a nobleman. And you're right, making crossbows do a million damage isn't the answer, nor is it what I want. But in the same vein, to make these guards a threat for players I'm going to have to either throw tons of guards at them or arbitrarily make guards much more powerful than they're supposed to be. My players are level 7 and they could mow down an entire city of guardsmen given the prep. Thats just not the kind of game I think I'm looking for. I want PCs to be special, to be heroes. But I dont want them to be so far removed from the world that the threat of the city guard is akin to a rat infestation. I think bonded accuracy goes a long way to helping this (5e is much better at this than PF, which I used to play) but it just doesnt go far enough in my eyes. I'm hoping that with a few simple houserules this can be remedied without having to change the entire game.

Oh, they can very well choose to mow down an entire city of guardsmen if they want to. It's just going to turn into an evil campaign.

Basically, they should be realistic consequences beyond just death, as mentioned by Shaofoo. PCs choose to act like murderhobos, they're now treated like murderhobos.

'though if that's not the kind of game you're willing to run, this is best handled via OOC discussion instead.

Trask

2016-08-21, 02:38 PM

Trask

2016-08-21, 02:41 PM

This isnt just a problem self contained in the guard scenario either. The game becomes a general arms race of power where I have to keep escalating monsters and villains and power even if it doesnt make any sense. What if the PCs are trying to stop an orc horde and they get to the point where Orcs are a joke? Hunting a foul beast in the woods and eventually through enough random encounters they dont even need to ambush it they just leap into battle. Crawling through the megadungeon and instead of making a bargain with the ratfolk guarding the pass its easier to kill them all. In a system where combat is as easy and danger free as 5e, combat is not only the best solution, its the easiest one. Combat should not be an easy solution.

NNescio

2016-08-21, 02:45 PM

I dont think of PCs as good or evil. They had good reason to investigate that house, the guard stopping them is simply a pawn in a larger scheme. If anything just telling them OOC that their way of playing is wrong removes drama. I dont want to do that, its dramatic for the PCs to have to clash with local authorities. But if they do clash I want it to be an "in the city of the enemy" feel. Not just superpower hour where entire platoons are torn to shreds.

They're only Level 7. Level 4 spells, max. I don't see how they can wipe out multiple platoons of guards unless they're using summoned pixies to polymorph themselves into flying giant apes or something.

Trask

2016-08-21, 02:48 PM

NNescio

2016-08-21, 02:56 PM

Well guards are pretty weak. They're CR 1/3. I think like 7 HP? Given that I think that my party of 6 could wipe a **** ton of them, enough to break morale and cause them to flee. I dont run humanoids as fighting to the last man.

Give the noble some bodyguards (CR 2 or so), elite bodyguards (CR 4), and maybe a spellcaster or two on staff. Arm the CR 1/8 Guards with crossbows. PCs go in guns blazing (metaphorically), they're going to draw a lot of heat and run into way more enemies than what a normal 'balanced' CR encounter would indicate. Multiple crossbow bolts focused on a single target is going to bring someone down, even if they're all only at +3 to attack.

And humanoids can be surprisingly brave with the right incentive. If the noble were evil, well, maybe he knows where their families live.

And if they kill the noble and wipe out the town after all that, well, bravo to them, but they're going to piss off a lot of influential people doing that, which may soon see a few assassins sent down their line in the future.

Shaofoo

2016-08-21, 03:00 PM

Well guards are pretty weak. They're CR 1/3. I think like 7 HP? Given that I think that my party of 6 could wipe a **** ton of them, enough to break morale and cause them to flee. I dont run humanoids as fighting to the last man.

Assuming theyre not ambushed of course. I'm sure with some clever DMing and a beefed up "guard officer" here and there I could get by making it a real threat, but still thats all it is. A threat. We make a session of battling towards the nobleman's house fighting guards in the streets and that just comes really close to superhero levels to me.

Like I said, the biggest threat isn't that the guards could beat the PCs but rather that the consequences for wiping out the guards be felt across the world. I doubt that a nobleman would be isolated from the world and if word got out that this group not only dared to invade your home but kill off your guards then the players should feel that the entire world be that much more hostile.

Were the players supposed to be fighting guards because I am getting the vibes that somehow this is supposed to be happening? If this is supposed to be happening then you can always add in tougher opponents but also since the noble's house will be under lockdown then throw in a few traps as well. And as a noble I am sure that you can justify a few spell users into the ranks as well.

The threat shouldn't come from the stats but also what the character can do outside the stats. A king might only be as strong as an average human but he can be the most powerful man in the room with the ability to wield huge armies and the command to exile or even execute any that he sees fit.

Trask

2016-08-21, 03:08 PM

Shaofoo

2016-08-21, 04:38 PM

Nothing was supposed to happen. I just gave the players a city and a plot and let them run with it. If they feel that making enemies of the authorities is what they have to do then I wont stop them.

I suppose thats true enough in the guardsmen context. But I feel somewhat that this thread has been derailed a bit. For reasons and examples that span beyond the scope of this one specific scenario I would like to make D&D 5e a more dangerous and deadly game, with less incentive for the players to see combat as ultimate way to resolve conflict. Even when I've clearly shown and given hint that certain groups of NPCs aren't immediately hostile, the PCs attack because thats what this game has trained them to do. I want to change this by changing the game with houserules.

You seem to have a bit of a conflicting goals in mind, you want the PCs to do what they want and you won't stop them yet you disapprove their methods of kill anything.

I don't think any number of houserules will fix the groups "shoot first ask questions never" policy. Even in a neutral place such as a town is not safe from a groups murderhobo fantasy then beyond just making everyone scale up to the PC's level (yes that breadmaker is a 7th level Fighter, and so is his wife and 2 year old son) I don't think any number of houserules will make the group less kill crazy.

I think that you shouldn't make death be the ultimate punishment, you seem to think that if you can find the right combination of rules to make everything lethal then everyone will rein back their murderous tendencies and this rarely works out well, players will just either find a way to get around these rules or go out in a blaze of glory, they will rarely change their tune especially if they made their characters around being kill crazy.

The best way I see it is make the conflict have much longer lasting consequences. Right now murdering the guard might be just a trivial thing but word gets around far and wide, you will have to work to make something actually organic come of it.

In the end D&D is not supposed to be the high lethality game, eventually certain hazards will stop registering as a threat on the PC's radar unless you put a ton of them, but that is where you put secondary effects into place. That guard was turned to paste in 2 seconds? Well that guard had a loving family and was well liked by the community, and because of that word gets out that there is a murderous pack of thugs running around the area. That can be your excuse to put some deadly encounters with mercenaries or assassins.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-08-21, 04:58 PM

The best way I see it is make the conflict have much longer lasting consequences.

I think a better idea than making the campaign about something he doesn't want is probably to just talk to the players about it, for starters.

Trask

2016-08-21, 05:47 PM

Shaofoo

2016-08-21, 05:55 PM

I'm not looking for extreme lethality. Maybe I'm not experienced enough with 5e but I dont feel that what Im looking for is inherently conflicting. All I'm looking for is ways to make 5e deadlier for the players. I think that the game can support that without breaking down.

You can ramp up the stats and encounters overall as well as add longer time needed to rest and rarer resources like healing potions. Making the game deadlier is easy without having to modify any of the rules.

But I can't see anyway to make the CR 1/3 Guard to be any sort of threat to 6 7th level PCs or even a 7th level PC without some big rules restructuring or DM fiat. Either make the guards automatically level up with the PCs or make the guards already high level. Or make killing the weak guard have huge consequences.

You can make the game deadlier for the players but you can't make everything deadly at all times. Eventually some things will phase out and become a nonissue. Adding difficulty is trivial, making everything difficult at all times regardless of circumstance is against the spirit of the game.

MrStabby

2016-08-21, 05:56 PM

R.Shackleford

2016-08-21, 05:56 PM

Sigreid

2016-08-21, 07:20 PM

If a DM says "The guard points his crossbow squarely at your face" expecting/hoping for the character to submit or stand down, and the player responds with "Screw that, I've got hit points", then obviously there are clashing assumptions at play that should be talked over in some way besides deciding whether it violates RAW if the DM were to narrate an instakill involving weapons. But in any case, I don't think it does.

I think it's more of "Screw that, I'm Rambo and this Barney Fife doesn't stand a chance." The reality is people can be and are trained in how to survive these kinds of situations. The FBI has done studies that show that if someone has the drop on you with a firearm, and hasn't pulled the trigger immediately, you have seconds to act before they can react and pull the trigger.

R.Shackleford

2016-08-21, 07:55 PM

I think it's more of "Screw that, I'm Rambo and this Barney Fife doesn't stand a chance." The reality is people can be and are trained in how to survive these kinds of situations. The FBI has done studies that show that if someone has the drop on you with a firearm, and hasn't pulled the trigger immediately, you have seconds to act before they can react and pull the trigger.

It helps that most people who pull a gun aren't really ready to kill someone. Without training (or your fight or flight reactions kicking in) it's hard to actually go through with stuff.

Really, the fact that D&D is based around "fight" and not "flight or fight" makes this game less gritty.

Could you imagine a saving throw at the start of a fight that tells you to fight or flight? At least until you get enough XP to get rid of it (level 3?)

Sigreid

2016-08-21, 08:21 PM

It helps that most people who pull a gun aren't really ready to kill someone. Without training (or your fight or flight reactions kicking in) it's hard to actually go through with stuff.

Really, the fact that D&D is based around "fight" and not "flight or fight" makes this game less gritty.

Could you imagine a saving throw at the start of a fight that tells you to fight or flight? At least until you get enough XP to get rid of it (level 3?)

As they explained it to us when I was in the military it has nothing to do with their willingness to kill or not. It boils down to the expectation that you are going to comply and the time it takes for that expectation to change. It's one of the reasons why they advise agents to have the one holding their gun on the suspect to keep a distance until the suspect is in a position that inhibits them resisting (on the ground, hands on the car, etc.).

Human Paragon 3

2016-08-21, 08:24 PM

Reduce HP or increase damage.

EDIT: Seriously, 1st level is already ridiculously dangerous because of the low HP. Just make HP scale more slowly and the game will be very dangerous.

EDIT EDIT: In 2nd edition only Fighters (and paladins and rangers) added their Con to HP. You could do something similar.

Malifice

2016-08-21, 09:59 PM

First let me say Dave Morris is brilliant and we probably should all worship at his altar or something. But this doesn't sound exactly like what we were talking about.

Amen brother :)

If a DM says "The guard points his crossbow squarely at your face" expecting/hoping for the character to submit or stand down, and the player responds with "Screw that, I've got hit points", then obviously there are clashing assumptions at play that should be talked over in some way besides deciding whether it violates RAW if the DM were to narrate an instakill involving weapons. But in any case, I don't think it does.

Are there clashing assumptions though? It could be the case the DM is inexperienced.

If he thinks a single incompetent mook guard with a crossbow is any kind of challenge for Achillies, or Gandalf, or Elric of Melinbone, he's wrong. The player (in this case) should be more scared of the in game ramifications of killing the Lords men (be branded a criminal, murderer of the Lords men and a dissident - and an incredibly dangerous one at that - and will have powerful NPCs and whole armies arrayed against him if he resists). The player goes along with the guard, not from fear of death from the crossbow bolt, but from fear that he signs his PC death warrant in other ways if he refuses.

Or simply rather than a single irrelevant guard, you have the guard be an 'Elite sharpshooter' with a special monstrous ability called 'deadly archer' that adds +5d6 damage to ranged attacks, upping his damage to be a reasonable CR appropriate threat in line with the Monster Manual.

Rather than change rules to make all PCs useless plebs, use the rules as written and the assumption of the game to challenge these heroic PCs with appropriate threats (armies, powerfull NPC adventurers, schemeing Lords and waves of minions, or CR appropriate critters and NPCs).

The latter makes for a much better story, is RAW, is more fun, and is easier to adjudicate without stripping the guts and core assumptions out of the whole system.

The player was snooping around the property of a nobleman. And you're right, making crossbows do a million damage isn't the answer, nor is it what I want. But in the same vein, to make these guards a threat for players I'm going to have to either throw tons of guards at them or arbitrarily make guards much more powerful than they're supposed to be.

For 7th level PCs, Make the guard elite guards (Veterans). Remove Multiattack, and include the Brute ability which works with crossbows, give them half plate and heavy crossbows. Increase Dex to 16 (+5 to hit)

AC 17, 58 HP, +5 to hit, 2d10+3 damage (melee or ranged), CR 3. Half a dozen of these guys are a decent challenge for a party of 7th level PCs. Done.

That was off the top of my head, and took all of 5 seconds.

My players are level 7 and they could mow down an entire city of guardsmen given the prep. Thats just not the kind of game I think I'm looking for.

And what would be the ramifications of the party murdering a bunch of town guard? What would happen if you went down your local police station with a machine gun and mowed down a dozen cops?

If your players think killing town guard (during an attempted burglary on a Lords manor no less) is not going to have serious consequences, they're fools (or youre not enforcing consequences for actions). Even with no witnesses, the Lord pays to have a cleric cast speak with dead on a guards corpse, and uses his (vast) wealth to hire Assassins (or dispatches his elite guard or his court wizard) to track down the PCs and kill them.

Dont forget to change their alignment also. Gunning down innocent cops who are just doing their job is pretty evil. Unless the PCs get fired on first, and even then they should avoid killing innocents (which the guards almost certainly are).

I'm hoping that with a few simple houserules this can be remedied without having to change the entire game.

I dont think you need houserules, I think you just need a better imagination, and a better grip of the rules as written for creating appropriate challenges for PCs as they advance.

Trask

2016-08-22, 12:59 AM

This is my first campaign with 5e so maybe I'm not utilizing my tools properly. I felt that the HP bloat and the ridiculous damage that PCs put out were a little too high and I may end up using some of the things in here. Particularly changes to rest and how long a long rest really is, as well as perhaps some others. I appreciate all your responses.

Also this isnt really the topic of the thread but I dont really think that theyre evil for killing the guards. I think of it kind of like the Matrix, is Neo evil because he killed all those people in the simulation? I dont think hes evil, he just realized the sad necessity of what he had to do. (If context helps the secrets this Nobleman was hiding were REALLY bad. Not just like minorly bad or petty stuff, really really bad)

Malifice

2016-08-22, 01:26 AM

This is my first campaign with 5e so maybe I'm not utilizing my tools properly. I felt that the HP bloat and the ridiculous damage that PCs put out were a little too high and I may end up using some of the things in here.

You've got a pretty good tool kit in the MM. You see what I did with Veterans above (by stripping mutiattack, and adding Brute, DPR and CR was maintained). Once you get a handle on it it takes all of 2 seconds to eyeball and hit the ground running.

If you want the guards in and of themselves to be a challenge, make them a challenge. Use Veteran stats, and have the leader be a refluffed Gladiator (just change his equipment to be the same as the guards, and give him a bling cloak or something to represent him as a baddie). If the lord is wealthy, throw a mage in there (no self respecting security detachment should be without one).

Particularly changes to rest and how long a long rest really is, as well as perhaps some others. I appreciate all your responses.

Changing rests is great if you're having difficulties time limiting your quests or policing the adventuring day.

It does make the game much grittier with the longer rest variant. Players reign in nova strikes a bit (note that you still have to police the adventuring day and time limit your quests; you just have more wriggle room with which to do so).

Also this isnt really the topic of the thread but I dont really think that theyre evil for killing the guards. I think of it kind of like the Matrix, is Neo evil because he killed all those people in the simulation?

At best it can be described as neutral (if done as a last resort, and in self defence).

Unless you want muddy waters, make the guards 'in on it'.

If you want to muddy the waters, have the PCs be contacted a week or so after the massacre by a tearful woman, holding a little baby, who wants to hire them (for her life savings of 50 copper) to find the men who killed the love of her life, her pious and goodly husband.

He worked for the local lord as a guard.

Strill

2016-08-22, 01:43 AM

Lol. For one round. If you can get off surprise.

Try it during a 6-8 encounter adventuring day.

Requires Wis, Cha, Str, Dex all 13+ Gets (at most) 2 feats/ ASI at 20th. Markedly behind a single classed version of any of the classes it multi-classes into at the same level, even when doing the one thing it's supposed to do well (nova).

This build is not based strictly around the Assassin and novaing is only one of several things it's good at. The strategy behind this build is not about novaing, it's about poaching every early damage boosting class feature of every martial class.

If anything, it's based around the Barbarian, which you should take to level 5 or 6.

Champion means you have a 20% crit chance with Reckless Attack, plus a fighting style and action surge.

Paladin gives you a fighting style, and critical smites.

Hunter gives you Hunter's Mark, a fighting style, and Horde Breaker for an extra attack.

Malifice

2016-08-22, 02:38 AM

This build is not based strictly around the Assassin and novaing is only one of several things it's good at. The strategy behind this build is not about novaing, it's about poaching every early damage boosting class feature of every martial class.

If anything, it's based around the Barbarian, which you should take to level 5 or 6.

Champion means you have a 20% crit chance with Reckless Attack, plus a fighting style and action surge.

Its a MAD as hell (4 stats need to be 13+ AND you need a good Con) nova build, that gets a grand total of 2 ASI over 20 levels, that is reliant on surprise round (whole party makes stealth + win initiative) to function once a day.

Paladin gives you a fighting style, and critical smites.

As your only spellcasting class, 3 level dip isnt going to help you much. 3 levels of Ranger adds another caster level (round down), but it seems like youre blowing at least one slot on hunters mark.

Hunter gives you Hunter's Mark, a fighting style, and Horde Breaker for an extra attack.

Its really not that good. All those dips screw with your stats and delay class features (and screw your stats more) in exchange for a possible nova strike, thats its not really that good at dealing in any event.

Strill

2016-08-22, 02:53 AM

Its a MAD as hell (4 stats need to be 13+ AND you need a good Con) nova build, that gets a grand total of 2 ASI over 20 levels, that is reliant on surprise round (whole party makes stealth + win initiative) to function once a day.Once again, no it's not about novas. You don't even need most of these classes because the primary focus is the Barbarian. You can easily toss assassin, for example.

I keep telling you that novas are not the primary focus of this build, and if you can't bother to listen, then there's nothing to discuss.

CrazyCrab

2016-08-22, 03:18 AM

I've been looking at this for a while now, so I figured that I may as well share my thoughts on this matter.

In the game I'm playing right now my DM wanted to make combat much more lethal, so EVERYTHING has 1/2 HP. Monsters, players, everyrthng. The problem with this is that temporary hit points become crazy overpowered and some builds (like the quickened booming blade smiting paladin) just one shot every enemy we come across. Blasting is king. Also, some classes are stupidly squishy - my lv 11 wizard has 32 hit points.

It works, but I don't think it's perfect.

My approach to my next campaign is going to be quite different. I want it to be deadly and lethal, but I want to stick to most rules as written as well as somewhat solidifying the setting. I feel like the way DnD does healing, damage etc. just isn't going to cut it for my post-apocalyptic campaign.

So, here is what I have planned so far:

1. More lethal weapons. Modern technology brings about some crazy strong weapons, including melee weapons. I have been rebalancing them accordingly, buffing old ones from the PH as well as adding a ton of new stuff. When a lv <5 player has access to a handgun (even the light one is 2d6 + bonus action attack at disadvantage) or a sawed off shotgun (2d8, cone) the damage becomes quite dangerous. Not to say that melee is terrible either.

2. HP Healing magic can only heal wounds sustained up to a minute ago. Anything else takes natural recovery. I always felt like a high level cleric was a bit absurd, seeing how they could just 'wake up, completely heal up to 30 commoners or more', then just keep doing this over and over for a week or so and a temple could ensure perfect health with just 'cure wounds'. Any wound not healed within a minute (or a minute after combat ends, for simplicity's sake) is deducted from maximum hit points. Then use medicine or long rest to get these back. Being stable places you at one hit point, barely conscious. I always found it a bit annoying that 5 players just have to wait around for that one guy.

3. When you fall unconscious you gain one level of exhaustion. This effect can only trigger once per short / long rest. This is to prevent 'fall down - stand up - fall down - stand up' nonsense you have to deal with with healing words and 'paladin lay on hands 1 hit point' silliness.

4. Injuries. More of a roleplay thing than anything else, when a character takes 1/2 or more of their hit-points in a single hit they have to do a CON save (same rules as concentration) or take an injury. It can be healed with lesser / greater restoration and is generally dependent on the type of damage sustained. Still working on a table, but it's things like a missing finger, twisted ankle, etc.

To counterbalance this the game is going to be much more about stealth, ambushes and careful planning. Rushing head first into combat is going to be quite nasty.

Strill

2016-08-22, 03:21 AM

2. HP Healing magic can only heal wounds sustained up to a minute ago. Anything else takes natural recovery. I always felt like a high level cleric was a bit absurd, seeing how they could just 'wake up, completely heal up to 30 commoners or more', then just keep doing this over and over for a week or so and a temple could ensure perfect health with just 'cure wounds'. Any wound not healed within a minute (or a minute after combat ends, for simplicity's sake) is deducted from maximum hit points. Then use medicine or long rest to get these back. Being stable places you at one hit point, barely conscious. I always found it a bit annoying that 5 players just have to wait around for that one guy.

That's because hit points are not meat points. An attack that rolls a hit does not represent an arrow through the chest, or a sword through your leg. Hit points represent luck, stamina, and minor cuts and bruises. They can be healed so easily because you're not actually taking any serious injury until you get reduced to 0 HP.

Malifice

2016-08-22, 03:37 AM

Once again, no it's not about novas. You don't even need most of these classes because the primary focus is the Barbarian. You can easily toss assassin, for example.

If we're tossing classes, we're talking about a different build.

Cool to drop it.

CrazyCrab

2016-08-22, 04:41 AM

That's because hit points are not meat points. An attack that rolls a hit does not represent an arrow through the chest, or a sword through your leg. Hit points represent luck, stamina, and minor cuts and bruises. They can be healed so easily because you're not actually taking any serious injury until you get reduced to 0 HP.

Oh, I'm aware of it. It's honestly my biggest gripe with DnD, I find the whole HP system quite ridiculous - use healing magic to restore my 'luck' and decrease the chances of getting hit... or that scene where the raging double-digit barbarian just stands in the hail of crossbow fire not all that annoyed with his thee-digit HP, with each bolt mysteriously just scratching him until the 200th one magically knocking him unconscious. I feel like a natural progression towards death (taking penalties each 20% of hp missing for example) would be much better.

It's my biggest (and probably the only) gripe with the system. But hey, the rest of the game is pretty neat, so I'll manage.

Malifice

2016-08-22, 04:57 AM

Oh, I'm aware of it. It's honestly my biggest gripe with DnD, I find the whole HP system quite ridiculous - use healing magic to restore my 'luck' and decrease the chances of getting hit... or that scene where the raging double-digit barbarian just stands in the hail of crossbow fire not all that annoyed with his thee-digit HP, with each bolt mysteriously just scratching him until the 200th one magically knocking him unconscious. I feel like a natural progression towards death (taking penalties each 20% of hp missing for example) would be much better.

It's my biggest (and probably the only) gripe with the system. But hey, the rest of the game is pretty neat, so I'll manage.

He's not just standing there. Hes knocking the arrows out of the air, they're glancing off his armor and sailing all around him, and he's leaping underneath them like an enraged tiger. Maybe one scratches his shoulder one way past.

Hits are hits to hit points. Not necessarily to the person.

R.Shackleford

2016-08-22, 07:26 AM

Oh, I'm aware of it. It's honestly my biggest gripe with DnD, I find the whole HP system quite ridiculous - use healing magic to restore my 'luck' and decrease the chances of getting hit... or that scene where the raging double-digit barbarian just stands in the hail of crossbow fire not all that annoyed with his thee-digit HP, with each bolt mysteriously just scratching him until the 200th one magically knocking him unconscious. I feel like a natural progression towards death (taking penalties each 20% of hp missing for example) would be much better.

It's my biggest (and probably the only) gripe with the system. But hey, the rest of the game is pretty neat, so I'll manage.

If you ever play competitive sports (basketball, football, combat sports) D&D HP actually makes a whole ton of sense.

Inspirational leader also makes a ton of sense.

Forum Explorer

2016-08-22, 02:27 PM

Nothing was supposed to happen. I just gave the players a city and a plot and let them run with it. If they feel that making enemies of the authorities is what they have to do then I wont stop them.

I suppose thats true enough in the guardsmen context. But I feel somewhat that this thread has been derailed a bit. For reasons and examples that span beyond the scope of this one specific scenario I would like to make D&D 5e a more dangerous and deadly game, with less incentive for the players to see combat as ultimate way to resolve conflict. Even when I've clearly shown and given hint that certain groups of NPCs aren't immediately hostile, the PCs attack because thats what this game has trained them to do. I want to change this by changing the game with houserules.

Well before you go full houserule, I'd recommend going to the gritty rules. Short Rests are 1 day, long rests are a week. Add in Lingering Injuries for going below 0 HP, and people will start playing more safe, simply because you won't get your HP back, and even losing a D6 or two of HP adds up quick.

And don't be afraid to refluff NPCs as needed like Malifce suggested. If you really feel the need to amp up the challenge, add in a House Champion or personal Knight that the noble has hired/is the patron of. The House Champ can have a PC class and stats, just take the time to write up his character sheet.

Alternatively, have the noble have some monster pets. An Ooze used for cleaning, a captured Troll, even a young remorhaz, raised from an egg to be a sort of guard dog. If the noble is evil, have him bring in monsterous allies. A demon or two, a Cambion, undead as needed, or even a baby dragon adviser.

Or for a big surprise? Have one of the guards actually be a Lycanthrope in disguise. Maybe the noble knows about it, maybe he doesn't. That's up to you, and a mystery to be solved. But unless your players regularly carry around silver or all have magic weapons, it'll be quite the shock and will really throw your players for a mix.

Strill

2016-08-22, 08:26 PM

If we're tossing classes, we're talking about a different build.

Cool to drop it.No we're not. The build I gave is very high level, and you're going to be going without most of these classes for most of the game. When I say you can throw Assassin out, I mean that it's not a priority. It's not critical to the build, and you could keep it for last. Barbarian, however, is essential to the build.

Saeviomage

2016-08-22, 11:40 PM

You want a solo low level mook guard to be a threat to a mid level PC.

First, you're probably playing the wrong game. A single low level NPC is not a threat to a mid level PC in D&D. That's deliberate. If your players are still mucking about with villains who have only a handful of guards covering their place, then you've done something wrong with XP.

Second, D&D has always been bad at 'covering' someone. Even if this were a 7th level guard vs the 7th level PC, it's a fair fight, because D&D lacks the rules to cover the situation. I would suggest a general rule that you can 'save' surprise.

Third, the guard should call for help. One guard is not a match for a 7th level PC, but a dozen are going to be a threat, and 2 dozen are getting scary. The main issue with being caught by a guard is not that he's going to shoot you, but that reinforcements are on the way, and you now have limited time to achieve your objective, assuming it's even possible to do so.

Fourth, if that's not possible, you should probably not have bothered spending screen time on it. If the player is 7th level and his worst opposition was going to be 5 cr 1/3 guards, you should just have hand waved success and had him describe how awesome he was.