5e returns the fear of dying? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Arc_knight25

2017-10-25, 07:56 AM

I am relatively new to 5e. We have had our third session. The first to sessions where more, find quest hubs, find info and see how our characters interact with one another.

Our last session, travel finally began, and the encounters started. We are doing Tomb of Annihilation.

So our first encounter was a t-rex munching on some zombies. We are level 2 so we just avoided the encounter. The t-rex was in no danger of dying and becoming a undead t-rex.

Our second encounter was a yellow creeper with about 7-8 zombies with it. Most of our party was able to avoid the creeper itself and stay out of zombie reach. We downed the creeper with ranged attacks and those charmed disengaged once the creeper was down. we left about 5 zombies "alive" and went on our way licking our woounds.

The last encounter we had for the session was 2 girrlions. I had entangled them as they noticed us as we attempted to sneak by(we were caught). As luck would have it they failed their saves on the first round and we ran like the dickens for we figured we were unable to deal with the treats.

All this to say. I am enjoying 5e for it puts the fear of dying back into the game.

What are peoples thoughts on this?

KorvinStarmast

2017-10-25, 08:17 AM

All this to say. I am enjoying 5e for it puts the fear of dying back into the game.

What are peoples thoughts on this? This is a good thing. :smallbiggrin:

Chronos

2017-10-25, 08:23 AM

KorvinStarmast

2017-10-25, 08:29 AM

Our experience was different. At low levels, combat is swingy, particularly when you have multiple enemies. A small party can go down quickly if they get cold on the dice.

Willie the Duck

2017-10-25, 08:31 AM

Tomb of Annihilation is a perfect adventure for people who want the old "hope you brought a binder of backup characters" style play. Lots of 'if you go down, you're dead,' kind of things. Lots of undead (and during the adventure, undead are extra scary, as you can't regain any drains until the adventure ends). Even before the main dungeon, lots of cases where if you die, you get eaten by jungle predators, so not a lot of resurrection (and also not a lot of towns). Compared to some of the intro adventures, ToA is taking the gloves off.

Overall, people have complained that, after a certain point, it is hard to get the middle ground between no characters dying and a party wipe (so, just one character dying for instance). Thhe new post-0-hp rules make standing toe-to-toe with the enemy while at 1 hp much more reasonable, since 11 points of damage won't assure that you die. There is a 1st-level bonus action healing spell that will allow you to get right back into the fight).

Although that spell and the 'back up for another go at it' effect can be annoying, if enemies attack downed PCs, the game is pretty deadly. Not as deadly as oD&D-BECM, where 0hp=dead. Nor are there really the 'save or die' effects that dominated 3e.

Specter

2017-10-25, 08:32 AM

Yeah, ToA may be a special case.

What I usually see (DM'ing or playing) is that bringing characters down is not too hard with bounded accuracy, but killing them is another matter. It takes at least three rounds for someone to die out of failed saving throws (~12,5% likelihood). If anyone's got healing magic they will eventually bring the fallen back up, and even with 1hp they're still doing everything they could do earlier. A common rule people use to avoid these 'whackamole' mechanics is give a fallen character one level of exhaustion when they get back up.

Provo

2017-10-25, 09:21 AM

5e does not return the fear of dying, but ToA certainly does.

I like Specter's suggestion of a level of exhaustion on getting back up above 1 hp.

Hitting downed characters also works (and that is what my DM does), but you need to be careful. Give your players some sort of heads up, or they may feel like they were singled out to die. And don't hit downed players in every encounter.

Edit: another option is to make your death save failure count persist until a rest (rather than going away the moment you are healed 1 HP).

Puh Laden

2017-10-25, 09:30 AM

I wonder if it would feel less like a player is being singled-out if you warn ahead of time that opponents such as mindless undead or those that see the party using healing magic will attack downed characters.

Joe the Rat

2017-10-25, 09:45 AM

I think that's still a fair application of fear - the actual likelihood of death is fairly low, but the perceived risk exists. Every time someone is dropped to 0, there is a risk of death. Any time you face a creature that could one-shot the wizard in hand to hand combat, there's a threat of death. Any time the DM presents you with a rickety bridge over a dark chasm, but insists it's "perfectly safe," there's risk.

It's a bit like a haunted house - the idea that something will come out and try to eat you, when there is virtually ZERO chance of it happening doesn't mean there's not a thrill from the idea of danger.
(If you find the danger is a bit more real, replace actors in rubber masks with rock climbing)

There are going to be those for whom the illusion of risk rings hollow - much like those of use who come out of haunted houses with little more than an appraisal of their design and effects. Presumably there are other draws to the game for them.

Tanarii

2017-10-25, 10:01 AM

Outside of first level, maybe second level at a stretch, if you do level appropriate encounter, no, 5e doesn't have any very big fear of individually dying. There is almost no fear of TPK. And the fear of perma-death vanishes by level 6, provided you have access to a level 9 cleric within 10 days of travel. YMMV.

If you your encounters are in level appropriate zones (aka dungeons) or just adventuring sites with preplanned encounters not tailored to any one specific party, and the players are free to choose which dungeons they enter or don't, then 5e may have a very big fear of individual death and TPK. It's completely on how reckless and/or brave the particular party is feeling in your sandbox campaign. IMO this generally works better in a multi-party open table (ie pickup party campaign), ie sorta west marches style. But that's just a personal opinion.

And of course you intentionally throw very over-leveled encounters at the party over and over again. This works best if you don't want the party to fight at all, or you just want to eventually TPK a party. If the former, this works best if the party has a reasonable chance to scout and run away and evade and is willing to spend entire game sessions doing that. If the latter you're kinda an ass. :smallwink:

If ToA intentionally has over-leveled encounters, which is sounds like it does, I'm assuming it's designed for the party to evade combat. Hopefully it also instructs the DM to make that clear before the adventure begins, because many players are used to Combat as Sport and won't assume that is necessary.

Willie the Duck

2017-10-25, 10:03 AM

Well, the illusion can be as important as the reality. Because what the game wants to be is readily tunable in actual-lethality as the DM wants it to be. D&D should be as lethal as makes sense, based on how attached the players get to their characters, how much the DM wants to run plots revolving around specific PCs, and a bunch of other factors. Thus, the closer the game can be to 'if the DM wants to set up a scenario where the characters very well might die' if that is what is called for, probably the better.

5e moves in that direction in a number of ways. few true save-or-die effects mean that it rarely falls to a single die roll whether one live. Refocus normal encounters to specifically be resource attrition helps. Not having nearly as many TSR-era like things like random cursed items where the effects are 'if the player is foolish enough to mess around with this, it does ____, unless someone nearby has this very specific spell prepared, they will die, no resurrection possible, identify will not reveal the curse' (I'm thinking bowl of watery death or necklace of strangulation, as examples). In the other direction, 3e had the whole 'character creation taking 30 minutes, 90 if you get to choose your own magic items' that 5e greatly reduced. All these things add up to the game allowing death, if needed, but not being quite the random bizarre 'oops. You're dead. Good thing you're so expendable.' of the earliest versions.

ToA is a great example. If you choose to run this dangerous adventure, by moving a few dials on the (stabilization and undead-draining) rules, plus a specific focus on the monster charts, followed by a dungeon that greatly discourages any 'leaving and going back to town to resupply/lick wounds,' and all of a sudden the game is extra deadly. Quick, simple, subtle changes changing the lethality level. That's what I like about the edition.

Arc_knight25

2017-10-25, 10:33 AM

The character creation in 5e to me focuses more on story building then crunch. Which I find is a relief. It makes it harder to just make an OP toon and overshadow the party.

I have yet to play into higher levels, I am looking forward to see how things begin to scale.

It is a good change from pathfinder in some regards. The diversity isn't there yet in my eyes for 5e, in comparison.

But with all that said. The perception of fear and death in this edition seems more true to form then in past editions. With AC totals not really improving a lot as you level, even mooks later on can still form a threat if there is enough of them.

alchahest

2017-10-25, 11:28 AM

it returns the 1 level "well I guess I'll reroll" as standard orcs are capable of killing some types of characters from full health in a single blow and others if they're already hurt. Outside of the first couple levels though you're fine. (excepting things like intellect devourers and strength-sapping undead or the harm spell.)

Tanarii

2017-10-25, 11:42 AM

ToA is a great example. If you choose to run this dangerous adventure, by moving a few dials on the (stabilization and undead-draining) rules, plus a specific focus on the monster charts, followed by a dungeon that greatly discourages any 'leaving and going back to town to resupply/lick wounds,' and all of a sudden the game is extra deadly. Quick, simple, subtle changes changing the lethality level. That's what I like about the edition.
The biggest changes I find help bring 5e in line with older editions is getting rid of long rest heal to full. This especially fixes things if you're adapting parts of older AD&D 1e adventures or BECMI adventures, which definitely are designed for long haul resource depletion with slow healing between encounters. Gritty Realism isn't necessary, those older modules assumed that a long rest recharges your spells. AD&D not quite at higher levels, but at lower levels close enough. If there is more than one day between adventuring days, and there is a healer in the party, you can assume that the healer uses all his slots to heal everyone to full. Basically, this house rule just makes concurrent adventuring days have no automatic natural healing, just HD and healing magic.

Second biggest is just letting intelligent enemies sometimes target creates that are making death saving throws / unconscious, especially if the intelligent enemy has just seen the character be pop-up healed. Personally I don't do this very often, because most of the time my players chose to get in thoroughly over their heads, so I can happily let them stick their own head in the noose, so to speak.

Willie the Duck

2017-10-25, 12:01 PM

alchahest

2017-10-25, 12:12 PM

Tanarii

2017-10-25, 12:13 PM

That's our default rule as well (removing overnight healing). You just get back your HD rolls to expend. I understand why they did it--when sitting around waiting to heal up, it is very rarely important if it takes one day or 10, except to increase paperwork, and with 11 base classes one can't assume every party has a cleric. But I prefer it taking 2-3 days, so you don't just assume you can leave the dungeon and camp until full and come back and everything is nearly the same.I was thinking more of modules that once you're in the adventuring site, you're in it. But for multiple days. You can (at risk) camp in the adventuring site, but the adventure assumes concurrent days until adventure completed. ie there's no benefit to camping for multiple days, and often it's dangerous to do so. And the slow whittle down of resources (specifically HP), whether you take a 5 min work-day or not. Example of the top of my head: X1 Isle of Dread and X2 Castle Amber.

If you can leave the dungeon and camp in a safe place and come back, you can usually camp for 2-3 days IMX. So it doesn't make much of a difference in that case. I mean, the dungeon might change, it's not necessarily static. But one day or 2-3 days doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Example: B2 Keep on the Borderlands.

B4 The Lost City can go either way. If the PCs can befriend a faction, they have a safe spot they can retreat to for as long as their food or treasure to buy food holds out. Or they may have to risk their own 'camping' elsewhere.

IMO this is more necessary if you're doing daily grind wilderness exploration adventures. But B4 and X2 are still dungeons, so that's not a universal rule.

The reason for this is straight up: these modules are not balanced around the assumption of 6-8 encounters per adventuring day. That's an argument for just using Gritty Realism of course. But that puts casters too far from the old-school spells/day, way more than these old modules assumed.

I don't know why people are so against full healing on long rests. HP isn't meat damage, it's not blood loss, it's just your capacity to fight. it always has been. You aren't regrowing lost chunks of flesh while you nap, you're recovering vitality and vigor. That's not to say there's never injuries or anything but unless the DM calls out grievous wounds specifically, broken or missing limbs, eyes, etc, then it's all minor and HP reflect your ability to fight, rather than your actual physical substance.
It's got nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the ability to use adventures that span multiple days in a row. Especially ones converted from older editions of D&D, which had very different assumptions. There's a whole wealth of awesome old adventures out there, and it's far easier to modify 5e to work with it than to modify it to work with 5e.

5e complete rehealing is designed to work with adventures structured like 4e's official play adventures: self-contained for one 4-5 hour session, 4-5 encounters, end adventure. Go home, run another one. Unspecified time between each adventure, so heal up to full between Long Rests. 5e's Adventuring League DDEX adventures generally also work this way, at least the one's I've read and played.

ZorroGames

2017-10-25, 12:50 PM

“-10 to die” reduced the fear of death after it was commonly implemented.

And good thing. My first night of OD&D we saw two TPKs totalling circa 20 PCs adventuring through wilderness to the dungeon and one Illusionist with one hp (out of a third party of 12 survivors that got to the dungeon) surviving the dungeon and only because of a natural 20 on avoiding a self-resetting trap (all of the traps did that) at the only entrance/exit. Pehaps not so strangely the next week nobody wanted to play D&D with “Tony the DM Arc-Angel of Death.” Also strangely enough Tony never wanted to play unless he was the DM...

The threat of instant death started to lessen after Wizards and Monks stopped using D4s (and Thieves and Clerics upgraded from D6s etc.,) so while Instant Death is lessened the threat of potential unsurvivable dying stills exists, especially with the [spoiler redacted] in ToA.

HD/HP in Men and Magic was... bizarre, being a carry over fron Chainmail. I think HD were D6?

“Fighting men” were 1+1, 2, 3, 4, 5+1, 6, 7-1, 8+2, 9+3, 10+1.

“Magic-users” were 1, 1+, 2, 2+1, 3, 3+1, 4, 5, 6+1, 7, 8+1, 8+2, 8+3, 8+4, 9+1, 9+2.

“Clerics” were 1, 2, 3, 4, 4+1, 5, 6, 7, 7+1, 7+2.

No one I knew failed to opt for the “alternative” D20 combat system. And the Dwarf, Elf, Hobbit class rules were inscrutable initially.

By the Greyhawk supplement in 1976 things got better but also weirder with Paladins as Fighting men and thieves being introduced. Plus the addition of half-elfs and the rework of the “classes of dwaf, elf, and hobbit.”

Blackmoor gave us Monks and Assassains... Eldritch Wizardry gave us psionics and druids. Only Monks and Druids were prevented from potentially being Psionic...

Somewhere during that chaos Magic-users and Monks became D4 HD, Clerics and Druids D6, Thieves (either D4 or D6?) and Fighters D8. Ad&D shuffled those numbers and added Barbarians and some other subclasses if I remember correctly (sold or gave away my old books.)

This system (skipped most of 2, all of 3.x and 4) seems much smoother and rationalized than my previous experiences. Death is possible but I no longer go into a game with “back-up” characters that I expect to introduce that night.

mephnick

2017-10-25, 02:00 PM

Second biggest is just letting intelligent enemies sometimes target creates that are making death saving throws / unconscious, especially if the intelligent enemy has just seen the character be pop-up healed.

AND announce non-intelligent enemies' attacks before you roll them.

"The Owlbear slashes at you twice. The first one hits and drops you to zero, the following claw hits you as you fall. You're at 2 failed death saves."

When I see DM's stop RAGING ANIMALS in between attacks to check if their target is at 0 or not, then change targets to metagame avoiding crits on downed players, it makes me sad.

alchahest

2017-10-25, 02:11 PM

yeah, dead player characters is the one true goal! always let the dice determine the complete course of the narrative!

mephnick

2017-10-25, 02:15 PM

yeah, dead player characters is the one true goal!

No of course not. But consistently avoiding it ruins the game for a lot of players. I've told DM's to kill me when they've been too scared to land the deathblow that should pretty obviously come.

always let the dice determine the complete course of the narrative!

I mean... yeah for the most part. If there's a decision that you decide to answer with dice, you let the dice determine what happens. That's why you're playing a game with dice right?

UrielAwakened

2017-10-25, 02:19 PM

I don't know why people are so against full healing on long rests. HP isn't meat damage, it's not blood loss, it's just your capacity to fight. it always has been. You aren't regrowing lost chunks of flesh while you nap, you're recovering vitality and vigor. That's not to say there's never injuries or anything but unless the DM calls out grievous wounds specifically, broken or missing limbs, eyes, etc, then it's all minor and HP reflect your ability to fight, rather than your actual physical substance.

Yeah I don't get it. Doing otherwise artificially inflates difficulty.

Combats should be challenging because of the tactics involved, not because you only get half as much hit points back during your rests.

It seems unnecessarily grueling. If you really want to make 5e more dangerous, add a level of exhaustion each time your player reaches 0 hit points. Way more interesting than just, "Sorry you get less hit points back arbitrarily."

EvilAnagram

2017-10-25, 02:19 PM

I've killed 4 PCs in one of my campaigns. Two at level three, two at level four. Only the Intellect Devourer was arguably unfair, but it's not my fault the paladin thought it would be a good idea to hang out alone with the slightly crazy lone survivor of a derelict ship!

Anyways, let's see if a pirate spectator with a motley crew manages to do in another.

alchahest

2017-10-25, 02:19 PM

right, but, being defeated in battle is worlds apart from having a series of unexpectedly brutal rolls that just wipe out a character completely. Life and Death aren't and shouldn't be the only consequences to a given battle. I think that it's perfectly easy to run a campaign where there's an expected amount of DM and player agency without feeling less challenging / like the stakes aren't high.

Tanarii

2017-10-25, 02:22 PM

yeah, dead player characters is the one true goal! always let the dice determine the complete course of the narrative!
Saving characters that would have died, for narrative reasons, quickly destroys verisimilitude*. So does the appearance of it, even if that's not what's happening.

Of course, so does the appearance of arbitrary DM decision making, even though that's sometimes our job. Announcing attacks in advance and sticking with them, like mephnick suggests, is anything but arbitrary. Having enemies decide to try to attack someone who is down that they've already seen pop-up healed does risk that, especially if it's inconsistent and there's no appearance of rhyme or reason to when it happens.

Edit: *Okay, that ones a personal opinion on narrative play-styles.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-10-25, 02:37 PM

No of course not. But consistently avoiding it ruins the game for a lot of players. I've told DM's to kill me when they've been too scared to land the deathblow that should pretty obviously come.

I mean... yeah for the most part. If there's a decision that you decide to answer with dice, you let the dice determine what happens. That's why you're playing a game with dice right?

This is very play-style dependent and I think it's important to set expectations going in (session 0 material). My players go to extreme lengths to stay above 0 HP (including such "unoptimal" methods as gasp using healing magic on people who aren't down yet) and consider it "risky" when they go under 1/3 health or so. For them, there's no ping-ponging with healing word.

Saving characters that would have died, for narrative reasons, quickly destroys verisimilitude*. So does the appearance of it, even if that's not what's happening.

Of course, so does the appearance of arbitrary DM decision making, even though that's sometimes our job. Announcing attacks in advance and sticking with them, like mephnick suggests, is anything but arbitrary. Having enemies decide to try to attack someone who is down that they've already seen pop-up healed does risk that, especially if it's inconsistent and there's no appearance of rhyme or reason to when it happens.

Edit: *Okay, that ones a personal opinion on narrative play-styles.

I'll admit. I'm not a killer DM. Part of that is that I'm conservative with my fights and don't build them to hard-counter characters. The rest is that I can't roll (enemy) saving throws or attack rolls worth crap because my dice like my players too much :smallamused:

I happen to know for a fact that several of my players would be heartbroken if their character died, especially due to something like a string of fluke crits. So I consciously avoid "smart" tactics like focus fire or targeting weak saves unless the NPC in question has a strong animus for that particular character. They still find plenty of tension in fights that (rationally speaking) are not that dangerous. That's a play-style thing, and 5e can do both high lethality and low lethality (by tweaking the appropriate levers).

Dhuraal

2017-10-25, 03:09 PM

In my games I introduced a house rule to take care of this that seems to work pretty well. But it is less fear of dying and more a fear of going down.

Instead of 3 Death Save fails to die it becomes 6
When/if you get back up, roll 1d6 and add your total number of failures
On a result of 6+ you suffer a lingering injury.

We don't use the injuries in the DMG because those are absurd. Instead they are smaller yet impactful injuries the DM chooses based on how they player went down. So it might be something like disfiguring burns that give you disadvantage on Charisma checks. Maybe you have disadvantage on Athletics checks from a punctured lung. Disadvantage on Perception due to a concussion. A limp and reduced move speed. Stuff like that. The only way to cure them are by visiting a cleric at a temple or doctor. I could probably be convinced to also allow restoration, greater restoration, or similar to be used, but either the players never got those spells or there was no one in the party who could cast them, so that's been a moot point so far.

And if you are also the kind of DM who feels bad about attacking your players while they are down, well now you have a bit more buffer to do so. :P

Fishybugs

2017-10-25, 03:13 PM

Our group only resets death saving throws after a long rest. Successful saving throws are reset after each battle. Going into a battle knowing you already have two death failures really makes you think about your plan.

This puts the fear of dying in us. It makes you think before acting. It puts the strategy back into healing instead of just waiting for the meat to hit the floor before spending any resources.

It's worked pretty well for us.

Slipperychicken

2017-10-25, 03:34 PM

With a competent healer, 5e player characters are basically unkillable. It makes me want to have some impact from being KO'd; even something basic like a -4 to rolls anytime you're reduced to zero hp between long rests, or stacking -1 penalties. Just anything that makes it not completely harmless.

yeah, dead player characters is the one true goal! always let the dice determine the complete course of the narrative!

I'm okay with dice deciding whether my character lives or dies. If I wasn't, then I'd have pushed my group to play freeform. Or I'd have joined an acting club instead of wasting my time with dice and game manuals.

UrielAwakened

2017-10-25, 03:37 PM

With a competent healer, 5e player characters are basically unkillable. It makes me want to have some impact from being KO'd; even something basic like a -4 to rolls anytime you're reduced to zero hp between long rests, or stacking -1 penalties. Just anything that makes it not completely harmless.

I'm okay with dice deciding whether my character lives or dies. If I wasn't, then I'd have pushed my group to play freeform. Or I'd have joined an acting club instead of wasting my time with dice and game manuals.

I repeat, give players 1 exhaustion every time they're reduced to 0 hp.

You don't need to invent a new subsystem. One already exists and it's damn effective.

Kane0

2017-10-25, 03:44 PM

It's not so much 5e as Tomb of Annihilation.

My group uses the exhaustion on reaching 0 rule, works well.

EvilAnagram

2017-10-25, 03:56 PM

With a competent healer, 5e player characters are basically unkillable. It makes me want to have some impact from being KO'd; even something basic like a -4 to rolls anytime you're reduced to zero hp between long rests, or stacking -1 penalties. Just anything that makes it not completely harmless.

I've had no trouble killing PCs, and it's been mostly without trying. I have two competent Healers in my group, and I still killed someone last session because the Cleric ran out of spell slots and the Mastermind with the Healer feat couldn't go before the Arcane Trickster failed his death save. I think the unkillable narrative only ever finds purchase in groups that don't hit the 6 to 8 encounters a day. When a DM properly exhausts the players' resources, dying at the end of the day becomes much more likely.

Tanarii

2017-10-25, 03:57 PM

My group uses the exhaustion on reaching 0 rule, works well.It works fine if you goal is to reduce popup healing in a bog-standard DMG adventuring day.

Not so much if you want a slow grind over multiple days, like many older edition modules assume. Because you aren't going to hit 0 multiple times a day, won't even get close to that point in the first place, because you'll keep healing to full after every Long Rest. Of course, if you want that AND are okay with slower replenishment of other resource too, you just use Gritty Realism Rest variant from the DMG. My suggestion was basically a partial Gritty Realism rest variant that only affects hit points.

I've had no trouble killing PCs, and it's been mostly without trying. I have two competent Healers in my group, and I still killed someone last session because the Cleric ran out of spell slots and the Mastermind with the Healer feat couldn't go before the Arcane Trickster failed his death save. I think the unkillable narrative only ever finds purchase in groups that don't hit the 6 to 8 encounters a day. When a DM properly exhausts the players' resources, dying at the end of the day becomes much more likely.
IMX players rarely die under the DMG encounter and adventuring day guidelines, excepting bad luck until after about level 2, unless the DM targets PCs making death saving throws. Not saying it doesn't happen. It's just rare.

alchahest

2017-10-25, 03:58 PM

Tanarii

2017-10-25, 04:07 PM

the DM sets the scale and scope of every challenge. killing PCs is not a challenge when the master of the game determines the challenges they face. a real challenge for the DM is setting up scenarios in which the heroes can succeed but still have a risk of failure. not in setting a challenge high enough that they can't topple it.
DMs set the scale and scope of every challenge in an adventure they write for a specific range of PC levels, but without any assumptions that players will actually face it at those levels or party members involved. Players that come together as a group decide what difficulty of challenge they are willing to face, and then within that challenge how far they push on. Killing PCs is merely a matter of letting them select too hard a challenge for themselves. A real challenge for a DM is writing adventures not tailored to a specific group of PCs.

... since we're writing global statements based on our assumptions of how play at the table happens.

EvilAnagram

2017-10-25, 04:14 PM

IMX players rarely die under the DMG encounter and adventuring day guidelines, excepting bad luck until after about level 2, unless the DM targets PCs making death saving throws. Not saying it doesn't happen. It's just rare.

I didn't kill a single PC until they hit Level 3. Since then I've killed all but two of the original characters, and it's mostly been from bad decisions on their part, not the decision to target them on my part.

Kane0

2017-10-25, 04:19 PM

It works fine if you goal is to reduce popup healing in a bog-standard DMG adventuring day.

Not so much if you want a slow grind over multiple days, like many older edition modules assume. Because you aren't going to hit 0 multiple times a day, won't even get close to that point in the first place, because you'll keep healing to full after every Long Rest. Of course, if you want that AND are okay with slower replenishment of other resource too, you just use Gritty Realism Rest variant from the DMG. My suggestion was basically a partial Gritty Realism rest variant that only affects hit points.

... which it is.

A PC recovers one stage of exhaustion over a long rest, as well as only getting half their hit die back. But we also use a longer rest variant so yes, these all work quite well together to grind the PCs down over the course of a few days of adventuring.

Tanarii

2017-10-25, 04:30 PM

... which it is.

A PC recovers one stage of exhaustion over a long rest, as well as only getting half their hit die back. But we also use a longer rest variant so yes, these all work quite well together to grind the PCs down over the course of a few days of adventuring.Ah yes, they would work well together in combination. Exhaustion by itself won't work so well IMX, because it's fairly rare in low encounter days with full resources available for characters to go down to 0 hps more than once. Maybe twice at the outside.

Which ties back into EvilAnagram's point. It's hard enough to outright kill characters even with a DMG bog-standard adventuring day of 5-6 mixed Medium & Hard encounters. (The 6-8 from the DMG text only holds true in the tables if you do Medium encounters only, and even then it's far more often 6. It's never 6 Hard encounters, so in that regard the text of the DMG is wrong if you take the table as correct.) If you're doing less than that, it becomes almost impossible.

I didn't kill a single PC until they hit Level 3. Since then I've killed all but two of the original characters, and it's mostly been from bad decisions on their part, not the decision to target them on my part.Bad decisions getting PCs killed doesn't sound unusual to me at all. :smallbiggrin:

Kane0

2017-10-25, 04:38 PM

Ah yes, they would work well together in combination. Exhaustion by itself won't work so well IMX, because it's fairly rare in low encounter days with full resources available for characters to go down to 0 hps more than once. Maybe twice at the outside.

Which ties back into EvilAnagram's point. It's hard enough to outright kill characters even with a DMG bog-standard adventuring day of 5-6 mixed Medium & Hard encounters. (The 6-8 from the DMG text only holds true in the tables if you do Medium encounters only, and even then it's far more often 6. It's never 6 Hard encounters, so in that regard the text of the DMG is wrong if you take the table as correct.) If you're doing less than that, it becomes almost impossible.

Yep. Not too long ago our party of level 8 paladins took on four erinyes in the one encounter, then short rested and fought four ice devils the same day. Thats what, a 4x deadly and a 3x deadly? Two of us dropped to 0 once each but otherwise we didn't have all that much trouble (though I woudn't want to do it again).

We had far more difficulty with the zombie encounters one session prior (something like 3d10 zombies per encounter 4 or so times in one day), though that might have been more due to a severe lack of AoE.

EvilAnagram

2017-10-25, 05:11 PM

Yep. Not too long ago our party of level 8 paladins took on four erinyes in the one encounter, then short rested and fought four ice devils the same day. Thats what, a 4x deadly and a 3x deadly? Two of us dropped to 0 once each but otherwise we didn't have all that much trouble (though I woudn't want to do it again).

We had far more difficulty with the zombie encounters one session prior (something like 3d10 zombies per encounter 4 or so times in one day), though that might have been more due to a severe lack of AoE.

I think this is a pretty good example of how the system works. I cannot stress enough how much more intense a battle is when the party has been through six medium-to-hard encounters. An umber hulk against six level-four characters is nowhere near a deadly encounter, but my party looked on helplessly as the rogue failed his last save after a few bad decisions because everyone was tapped. Even if they had managed to save him, pushing the players to the edge created a much more intense feeling to an encounter, and I think creating an environment in which death seems like a realistic possibility helps to inculcate that feeling.

Fortunately, 5e is a system that provides that feeling so long as you engage in the standard number of encounters.

Laserlight

2017-10-25, 07:05 PM

AD&D didn't have a ”fear of dying” in our group; it was an ”expectation of dying.”

I've polled my players on which battles ND monsters they liked most. ”Caused at least one PC to hit 0hp” was a key factor in popularity.

MrStabby

2017-10-25, 07:52 PM

As a DM I have had few casualties despite a pretty (as i thought) brutal campaign. Not all adventure days were long, but some were endurance grinds of up to 9 or 10 encounters.

The only casualty I had was when I fed a PC to a mind flayer - a hall of mirrors separated him from the other PCs and they couldn't get to him in time to drive off the 'flayer before his brain got et. Not to say there havent been others that are close - blind dimension dooring through rock in a dungeon is a pretty big risk (hurrah for a d360!).

I agree that resource depletion, or fear of it, is pretty instrumental to the challenge. A party of PCs with magic items, burning resources as fast as they can, can obliterate many horrifically overleveled encounters - especially against too few targets. A few arrows, tripwires, some potions used, maybe a spell scroll, surprise rounds can turn trivial encounters into a real challenge to the party to keep resource usage to a minimum.

One character death - but about 4 or 5 party defeats so far, where the party has chosen to withdraw with in-world consequences. Almost all of these have been when two or more players are running low on resources. Only one has been through an encounter that was simply that powerful by itself.

There are some encounters where small differences in rolls can make a BIG difference in resources used. Playing a bunch of Vampire Spawn against the party was an example. Paladin and Druid nearly both went down (only a round of attacks that failed to hit either of them (with advantage)) saved them. If the paladin had taken 4 more HP of damage, bless would have gone down, there would have been a turn whilst the cleric brought him back up where no radiant damage was done leading to HP recovery on the vampires as well as limiting party damage that turn. Those extra turns bought for the vampires to attack would take more resources to stop... fight was never in doubt but the ability to keep going for another 3 or 4 fights was.

Deleted

2017-10-25, 09:47 PM

Arc_knight25

2017-10-26, 07:17 AM

Quoxis

2017-10-26, 07:32 AM

The fear of dying is a good thing, but I'm not sure that 5e has actually returned it. It takes a truly massive amount of damage to kill a character outright, and anything short of an outright kill, the cleric can just get you back on your feet the next round with a bonus action Healing Word. My group is up to level 13 now, having started from scratch at 1, and the only times we've ever needed to use even a Revivify have been on NPCs who don't benefit from the whole death saves thing.

Assuming an opponent makes sure you stay down, it's easy to die. Any hit you take while knocked out resembles a failed death save, so if an enemy downs you with his first attack, takes one death save with his second one, his buddy uses one attack on you and then moves away, and Suddenly you roll a 5 on your remaining save and die before the low initiative cleric can make a move... At least that's what happened to me just last weekend.

Deleted

2017-10-26, 08:04 AM

NorthernPhoenix

2017-10-26, 09:05 AM

Deleted

2017-10-26, 09:48 AM

Within a given encounter, the DM controls the primary lever for wether or not an encounter is extremely lethal or not, which is forcing failed death saves. The only "issue" with that is that a lot of players really hate it. But if you really love super-fan games the answer might just be "too bad".

I don't personally do this but I don't care for super-lethal play

Personally, a lethal encounter should be thematically (or dramatically) appropriate.

Some battles should be lethal for anyone involved but other battles may only be lethal to those that it would be dramatic for.

So if you and your fellow players are trying to save your character's niece from a cult, really the only player that should have to worry about lethality is your player. This makes death meaningful but keeps the idea of realism alive and is a good "RR Compromise" (Tolkien versus Martin fantasy) as the person the encounter is actually dramatic to will typically be more focused on the objective and trying to do whatever it is (saving the niece in this case).

The encounter can be dangerous for others, just not as much. You don't do this by clubbing dice, you do this by setting enemies up that are a check or soft counter to the thematic/dramatic specific player(s).

This way, yeah no one is being killed by a random goblin, but at the same time the good guys don't always win. (The RR Compromise).

PhoenixPhyre

2017-10-26, 09:58 AM

Personally, a lethal encounter should be thematically (or dramatically) appropriate.

Some battles should be lethal for anyone involved but other battles may only be lethal to those that it would be dramatic for.

So if you and your fellow players are trying to save your character's niece from a cult, really the only player that should have to worry about lethality is your player. This makes death meaningful but keeps the idea of realism alive and is a good "RR Compromise" (Tolkien versus Martin fantasy) as the person the encounter is actually dramatic to will typically be more focused on the objective and trying to do whatever it is (saving the niece in this case).

The encounter can be dangerous for others, just not as much. You don't do this by clubbing dice, you do this by setting enemies up that are a check or soft counter to the thematic/dramatic specific player(s).

This way, yeah no one is being killed by a random goblin, but at the same time the good guys don't always win. (The RR Compromise).

My play style (which is merely preference!) is very similar. Strong, planned lethality should only be for dramatic purposes. Unplanned lethality can come because the party done goofed bad (1 level 2 PC vs a CR 9 dire yeti = dead PC). I tend to plan encounters that challenge one or two characters, but that don't require certain abilities/successes. So no hard counters (or things that require hard counters). Plenty of soft counters--abilities that keep that rogue out of good sneak attack position. Minions that work to break concentration. Stuff like that.

Deleted

2017-10-26, 10:30 AM

My play style (which is merely preference!) is very similar. Strong, planned lethality should only be for dramatic purposes. Unplanned lethality can come because the party done goofed bad (1 level 2 PC vs a CR 9 dire yeti = dead PC). I tend to plan encounters that challenge one or two characters, but that don't require certain abilities/successes. So no hard counters (or things that require hard counters). Plenty of soft counters--abilities that keep that rogue out of good sneak attack position. Minions that work to break concentration. Stuff like that.

Oh yeah, I typically assume a competent group when I talk about things. Stupid players doing stupid things is beyond any DM's control and really that's the only time I use hard counters (sometimes good players do stupid things) but that's more because I had my hand forced (PC wanted to steal a dragon egg at level 3, they took out the baby sitter and stayed around waiting for the parents to get back because... Reasons?).

Pex

2017-10-26, 10:39 AM

Tanarii

2017-10-26, 12:44 PM

Maybe fear of death was the wrong choice of words.

I mean I feel a little more realism so to speak. It may just be the DM or ToA, but the fact that it feels like we really are low level adventures traversing the jungle. Being scared of almost everything that has come at us thus far. I'm sure some of those threats will lessen once we get into higher levels, but the fear is still there. and I find it refreshing.

Oh yeah, that's pretty easy to instill. You just need to make it clear, either directly or through in game encounters appropriately telegraphed, that the PCs can't expect to win every fight. That there are things out there that will wipe the mat with them.

I'm now interested in this adventure. :smallbiggrin:

EvilAnagram

2017-10-26, 01:23 PM

If the DM is upset a PC wasn't killed or happy one was, he needs to leave the position.

If player is being reckless ruining the fun of everyone and refuses to change his behavior after being spoken with, he needs to leave the table.

D&D game system is irrelevant to this.

This does not seem to have anything to do with the discussion at hand...

No one is talking about punishing PCs for OOC actions or taking joy in killing PCs.

Pex

2017-10-26, 02:00 PM

This does not seem to have anything to do with the discussion at hand...

No one is talking about punishing PCs for OOC actions or taking joy in killing PCs.

The OP enjoys the return of the fear of death. That doesn't make him a tyrannical/killer DM. It contains the reckless player. I'm pointing out that enjoyment can go too far, and it shouldn't and also doesn't let reckless players off the hook.

ZorroGames

2017-10-26, 07:14 PM

It was not so much the dying of a character, though my relatively new wife, new to non-cpu D&D, running an OD&D 16th level Wizard (D4 hps) in a “high teens” level adventure did make me bite my tongue a few times, since I was on Character 22 (?) before I got past level 1 but it was the concern of all that lost effort more than the dying.

I have no qualms if my character dies nowadays as long as it isn’t a result of bad judgment. Bad dice, no sweat. Glorious sacrifical role play, bring it on! A fellow player causing a TPK, it happens. Stupid play on my part (or admittedly bad DMing,) now that would bother me a lot.

It has not change that much from OD&D in that good team work combined with knowing when to hold’em versus when to fold ‘em in conjunction with balanced DM play creates a tension that may exist with or wthout the overbearing fear of dying.

ZorroGames

2017-10-26, 07:16 PM

5e is just as unrealistic as any other game out there.

You want realism? Enlist. Been there, done that, prefer playing wargames than realism.

Deleted

2017-10-26, 10:48 PM

You want realism? Enlist. Been there, done that, prefer playing wargames than realism.

First. Who said I wanted realism? Anyone want to raise your hand if ole Deleted has ever said he wanted D&D to be more realistic or as realistic as possible...

Secondly, you're talking to the wrong person about your enlistment complaints there bucko. Just because you regret or had a bad time doesn't mean everyone shares your experience.

Willie the Duck

2017-10-27, 06:52 AM

Secondly, you're talking to the wrong person about your enlistment complaints there bucko. Just because you regret or had a bad time doesn't mean everyone shares your experience.

For someone who just pulled the 'raise your hand if you ever heard me say...' routine, you sure are inferring a lot of things into ZorroGames' statement that he didn't actually say.

Arc_knight25

2017-10-27, 07:44 AM

The OP enjoys the return of the fear of death. That doesn't make him a tyrannical/killer DM. It contains the reckless player. I'm pointing out that enjoyment can go too far, and it shouldn't and also doesn't let reckless players off the hook.

This statement here.

My DM is a more tough but fair type. I find recklessness will get you into a lot of trouble. This edition much like fourth, in my eyes, leans towards keeping the party together as a formula to making encounters. I find the encounters thus far "less balanced" then in other editions.

I do realize that all the editions use the party level and all that for making encounters. Just more of a feels like 5e is less forgiving then those other editions. Just like fourth edition where there isn't really a time where one character could engage a party level encounter solo and live to tell the tale. 3.5 and Pathfinder you could build your way there with magic items, certain feats and of course certain classes. I don't feel like that is as probable in 5e edition.

ZorroGames

2017-10-27, 08:00 AM

5e is just as unrealistic as any other game out there.

You didn’t say this?

Edit: Should I raise my hand? Or were you unclear?

ZorroGames

2017-10-27, 08:03 AM

First. Who said I wanted realism? Anyone want to raise your hand if ole Deleted has ever said he wanted D&D to be more realistic or as realistic as possible...

Secondly, you're talking to the wrong person about your enlistment complaints there bucko. Just because you regret or had a bad time doesn't mean everyone shares your experience.

When most people during the vietnam years were promted to my rank at year 13 in my career field I was there at year 6 so the experience was not bad at all. No complaints, went on to spend 38 years as military and civilian.

Edit: Left after 2 enlistments for family reasons, rest of those years were civilian.

Deleted

2017-10-27, 10:29 AM

For someone who just pulled the 'raise your hand if you ever heard me say...' routine, you sure are inferring a lot of things into ZorroGames' statement that he didn't actually say.

When this guy...

You didn’t say this?

Edit: Should I raise my hand? Or were you unclear?

Is not only putting words in my mouth but going off the deep end like he's hot crap...

Yeah, I would like to know when the hell I've ever said 5e should be more realistic.

What I said was that 5e is just as unrealistic as any other game out there and this dude got triggered for no reason.

I never said I wanted 5e to be more realistic, I'm the guy who pushes for equal unrealistic between magic and martial characters.

Willie the Duck

2017-10-27, 10:44 AM

Is not only putting words in my mouth but going off the deep end like he's hot crap...
...
What I said was that 5e is just as unrealistic as any other game out there and this dude got triggered for no reason.

ZG's "You want realism? Enlist." comment was snarky and perhaps a little rude. However, I don't think anyone but you think he's acting triggered or gone off the deep end or think's he's hot crap.
The only one who really seems to be overly agitated at this time is you.

Fishybugs

2017-10-27, 01:05 PM

You didn’t say this?

Edit: Should I raise my hand? Or were you unclear?

Him pointing out a game is unrealistic is not equivalent to him saying he wanted it to be more realistic.

I could point out a tomato is red. It doesn't mean I want it to be less red....

alchahest

2017-10-27, 01:45 PM

edit - a whole bunch of other people chimed in before me so I'll drop it!

Anonymouswizard

2017-10-27, 04:59 PM

I've found 5e to be as deadly as most games I've played at low levels, but as soon as it gets to about level 4 it takes the GM hard countering three quarters of the PCs to get close (I kid you not, resistance to nonmagical damage and high hp pools in a party of three martials and a sorcerer, if our Sorcerer had burnt all her spell slots we'd have taken down maybe two out of five enemies before a TPK arrived, then the deus ex machine happened).

It's nothing like old Basic D&D and Advanced D&D were. Remember rolling hp at level one? Good chance having a magic-user who can survive the average sword hit until level three, and it's another two levels until you get your first fireball. Fantasy Vietnam was the first few levels, until you got to the point where you could take a few hits before the cleric patched you up.

Because despite not having skill systems, those games weren't about combat. Unlike 5e there was no expectation of 6-8 encounters before your night's rest, and you'd best remember that it takes hours of preparing to get those high level spell slots back. Getting into combat without proper preparation was generally a bad idea. 5e hasn't hit that level of lethality, 3.X was much closer. 3.X still had slow natural healing (so returning to full was dependent on the Cleric's spell slots), 3e still had Save or Die effects, what 3.X did was add a system where you could in theory build balanced encounters (which is almost impossible in an RPG anyway).

Now I like a game more lethal than 5e, but with a chance of surviving, so I don't run 5e. I'll either run a retroclone (Lamentations of the Flame Princess is my favourite) with the focus on combat dialled way down, or a game like Keltia or GURPS where starting characters can take a hit or two but then won't gain much hp.

Estrillian

2017-10-30, 06:04 AM

I've always approached character death in an "only do it if it is meaningful" way. Running GURPS, for example, characters only died when they had something on the line story-wise. I would ask players what they would be willing to have their characters die for (to protect my family, to save my friends, for my country, etc.) and then try to give them those sorts of situations. Instead of death I used other sorts of nasty penalties (scars, missing limbs, horrible social and RP consequences). GURPS helps you with that — fighting is not the default mode for the system, and high defences make it relatively easily to cut and run. (And you will want to cut and run, because HP almost never increases).

5E doesn't feel like that. It feels like the only way to challenge characters is that constant resource drain leading to the threat of death. Unfortunately with a decent party and a good healer the threat of death seems almost non-existent. I play with gritty realism rests and no full-hp recovery, and it is still rare for characters to go down. A life cleric always has healing resources even with only short rests, a warlock/wizard never runs out of spell slots, and martials are hard to kill. Our only deaths have been were people have been separated from their support.

I'm interested in the Exhaustion on 0, but I don't think I'd want to retrofit it in now. Instead we say that any time you are reduced to 0 by a critical hit, or any time you take a forced death save by being hit when on 0, we roll on the long term injury table. That does work ... but the table has far too many missing limbs and not enough other injuries, so I'd love more options.

Tanarii

2017-10-30, 09:23 AM

It's nothing like old Basic D&D and Advanced D&D were. Remember rolling hp at level one? Good chance having a magic-user who can survive the average sword hit until level three, and it's another two levels until you get your first fireball. Fantasy Vietnam was the first few levels, until you got to the point where you could take a few hits before the cleric patched you up.
Yeah. I still instinctively think of BECMI as 'fear of dying done right', even though its actually 'trail of bodies your one living character is standing on' that numbs you to death. The only way to live long enough to to get to second level was for the DM to hold your hand / make house rules, or to get supremely lucky finding treasure before any real fights. Or to roll up 3 Fighters and one non-fighter, and send a wall of fighters to their death, hiring replacements until your non-fighter got up a few levels and could keep a few fighters alive.

Seriously, I've played with a few very large groups in B-series BECMI modules to get the old experience, and they really do seem to be designed for 10 players (or at least, ten characters), with half of that being sacrificial fighters.

Willie the Duck

2017-10-30, 10:22 AM

Seriously, I've played with a few very large groups in B-series BECMI modules to get the old experience, and they really do seem to be designed for 10 players (or at least, ten characters), with half of that being sacrificial fighters.

BECMI was still designed around the OD&D logic of you avoid fights like the plague, use morale to keep fights extremely short (something like half of your opponents should run for the hills after the first round), make deals/negotiate with most of the bad guys you run into (reaction table does mean most encounters don't have to be combat), and have parties of 8-12. That honestly would be fine, if they had communicated that (and honestly, if they had, I'm pretty sure most people would have said, "well, I guess D&D isn't the game for me, I'll play _____").

I love TSR-era D&D. In many ways I find it a more enjoyable game, but there are serious significant issues in it that you just scratch your head at how the game existed for 26 years without them really addressing.

ZorroGames

2017-10-30, 11:15 AM

Yeah. I still instinctively think of BECMI as 'fear of dying done right', even though its actually 'trail of bodies your one living character is standing on' that numbs you to death. The only way to live long enough to to get to second level was for the DM to hold your hand / make house rules, or to get supremely lucky finding treasure before any real fights. Or to roll up 3 Fighters and one non-fighter, and send a wall of fighters to their death, hiring replacements until your non-fighter got up a few levels and could keep a few fighters alive.

Seriously, I've played with a few very large groups in B-series BECMI modules to get the old experience, and they really do seem to be designed for 10 players (or at least, ten characters), with half of that being sacrificial fighters.

OD&D started so kill heavy that wihin a month or two I understood why players “solo’ed” with three to 4 fighters, a cleric or two, at least one mage, and,when Greyhawk Supplement came out, a Thief!

Edit: especially when clerics did not get spells until second level.

Meatshield was sometimes literal!

More than once I saw a spelless Mage using a “dead” body as a shield while retreating.

Tanarii

2017-10-30, 11:44 AM

BECMI was still designed around the OD&D logic of you avoid fights like the plague, use morale to keep fights extremely short (something like half of your opponents should run for the hills after the first round), make deals/negotiate with most of the bad guys you run into (reaction table does mean most encounters don't have to be combat), and have parties of 8-12.Absolutely. And the reason for all that is combat is absolutely lethal at low levels. But often you have to face it anyway at some point, to try and get enough treasure to get to level 2.

In fact, the times I played BtB BECMI, the only reason the characters gain a level is the recovered gold & kill XP is divided among the survivors. Something like 10 men go in, and 3 come out and split the XP award.

That honestly would be fine, if they had communicated that (and honestly, if they had, I'm pretty sure most people would have said, "well, I guess D&D isn't the game for me, I'll play _____").For sure. I specifically went back and played it that way to experience what it was like, the sheer brutality of it. Because we sure didn't play it that way when I was a kid. We house-ruled the hell out of it and treated each other with kid gloves so we could keep our characters alive. Or monty hauled the first loot find to power level ourselves. Or just started at higher levels.

ZorroGames

2017-10-31, 05:18 PM

ZG's "You want realism? Enlist." comment was snarky and perhaps a little rude. However, I don't think anyone but you think he's acting triggered or gone off the deep end or think's he's hot crap.
The only one who really seems to be overly agitated at this time is you.

Rude was not my intent. Sarcasm, yes... snarky, probably though not intentionally... I just think people use the “realism” comments like some people use an “-ism” card. I know plenty of fellow Hispanics who never understood that that card playing practice was self defeating. Play by society’s rules to win. [
Back on topic directly - I think the more you strive for “realism” in D&D the more you get threads like ‘WOTC has no idea what (wuxia, samurai, insert term here) means!” Well, they don’t and they don’t seem to care so historical viewing of D&D play in realism terms is as useless as measuring average distances that Napoleonic formations may have made in reality to war gaming’s mystical “Infantry move 6” in a turn” rules.

Yes, I can be a shoot from the hip sarcastic person. That should be no surprise actually for those who know me or read more than one of the threads I respond to. I grew up in East Los Angeles defending my self from the gang wannabes with my mouth and, occasionally, my mind. 🤔 Had I been faster I would have used my feet more. Which would have been smarter I admit. Sometimes the reflex comments happens before the rational part brain gets input. Have a few scars from broken glass to prove that. 😇

I just think “Realistic” and “Fantasy Game” are oil and water terms. YMMV and that is fine.

Fear of dying in a game seems to mean fear I might lose my character despite my best effort playing. If there is no concern for keeping your character heroically alive than perhaps all the criticism of 5e may be best seen as that line between the iconic character killing sadistic DM and the nice guy to a fault DM afraid to let bad play have consequences.