There's a difference between PCs and NPCs, is that a problem?

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm contemplating rule variants shenanigans regarding dying in 5e. My only problem is that whatever optional rules I come up with for the players, the same rule just doesn't work when applied to creatures and monsters.

My idea, in short, is that dying is harder, but the process is much more scary. Between 0 HP and "death" I'm looking at lingering injures and either death saving throws or exhaustion. This would mean that killing a player might take up to 3 extra hits after he's reached 0HP. The players will see their character go through multiple encounters, so any of these mechanics is going to affect the player, but If I apply the same rules to monster who only has to endure 1 encounter, they suddenly get twice the durability and don't have to suffer any of the lasting effects, since they're dead, which is not optimal.

Is it okay having huge discrepancy between monsters and players, or is it off-putting seeing how your character seem to live by a completely different set of rules than the rest of the world. I'm afraid once a player realizes this it might break the immersion and give the impression of plot armor :/

[Man_Over_Game]

It's important to note that, unlike 3.5, players and NPCs don't follow the same set of rules. Players deal more damage, have less health, and have a lot more resources to spend. This is all intentional, and a pretty normal part of game design. It's not like monsters have to plan on surviving to the next day like players do, and designing them to creates a lot of overhead for the DM (who's the only person who'll care anyway).

5e DOES kinda use something like what you're describing anyway. All creatures can technically make "death saving throws" with DM fiat, the thing is, though, is that monsters usually either bleed out or it's assumed that they were finished off at the end of the fight. Major NPCs might make death saving throws because the players actually care about their life, even if they're an enemy.

If you do decide to let players stay conscious after hitting 0 HP, you'll want to take note of the Samurai Fighter and Zealot Barbarian features to determine how those features work with your changes.

[KorvinStarmast]

You don't need a rule variant.
I'm contemplating rule variants shenanigans regarding dying in 5e. From the rules, we find this.
Monsters and Death

Most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops to 0 hit points, rather than having it fall unconscious and make death saving throws. Mighty villains and special nonplayer characters are common exceptions; the DM might have them fall unconscious and follow the same rules as player characters. You don't have to have monsters and NPC's die when they drop to 0 HP. You can always have monsters and NPC's drop to 0 HP and roll death saving throws. Or, just have those monsters and NPCs that interest you enough do that.

I"ve been doing that since this edition came out. It works out just fine. It also opens up some options by the players to try and stabilize and revive someone they just killed (to include creatures killed by accident).

This isn't a computer game written in hard computer code.
For example, this isn't Diablo II in hard core mode.


Is it okay having huge discrepancy between monsters and players,
There already is one in the MM. Don't worry about it. I think you are making this more complicated for no good reason.

I'd suggest that you use the tools that are already there.

[Composer99]

3.5e is the only edition of D&D where PCs and NPCs/monsters alike used all, or almost all, the same mechanics for everything. So I don't think that's prima facie a problem. For example, monsters in AD&D 2nd edition did not have ability scores.

That said, as far as I know, strictly speaking in 5e all creatures roll death saving throws when they reach 0 hit points - it's just most DMs dispense with doing so for monsters most of the time. I'm away from my DMG, but I think that's even suggested/recommended.

I suppose there might be players who end up being put off by this behaviour... but there's no accounting for taste, and I would think the convenience and time saved of not rolling dice to see if every one of the hundreds of creatures an adventuring party is likely to fight pulls through or not is worth the possibility that some player might be bothered by it.

Now, with all that in mind... I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you mean by

[...]The players will see their character go through multiple encounters, so any of these mechanics is going to affect the player, but If I apply the same rules to monster who only has to endure 1 encounter, they suddenly get twice the durability and don't have to suffer any of the lasting effects, since they're dead, which is not optimal.

Is it okay having huge discrepancy between monsters and players, or is it off-putting seeing how your character seem to live by a completely different set of rules than the rest of the world. I'm afraid once a player realizes this it might break the immersion and give the impression of plot armor :/

I think it's that last part of your second paragraph ("The players will see....") that I'm having the most trouble parsing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm going to directly address the title: No, that's not a problem. In fact, it's a feature, not a bug. The two play different and complementary roles in the narrative, and so their mechanical representations need also be different. PC/NPC transparency inevitably breaks things, because features that work for NPCs to use on the single scene they're "on screen" don't work for PCs who get to use them day in and day out. And vice versa. Plus, you have the inevitable world-building problem[1]: anyone with the proper skills to do their mundane job must also be able to fight off small armies. That king? Needs to be a high-level person. No possibility of having a weak (combat-wise) vizier who can manipulate people like an expert (or else any level 1 PC can also do that and the system shatters). You need all these "useless" abilities to flesh out the world, which means you have to bloat the system tremendously.

Instead, using 5e's system, you only pay attention to the parts that matter for the role of the character right now. You can simply give the NPCs the features they need to do their job. Don't have to play with numbers or give fake levels, bloating their HD. Etc.

Edit: forgot a foot note
[1] inevitable in a class-level system, anyway

[Ninja_Prawn]

No, that's not a problem. In fact, it's a feature, not a bug.

Agreed.

If you want 0HP to be scarier, just throw in a lingering injury every time someone drops to 0HP like it suggests on page 272 of the DMG. No need to overcomplicate things.

[GlenSmash!]

I'm going to directly address the title: No, that's not a problem. In fact, it's a feature, not a bug. The two play different and complementary roles in the narrative, and so their mechanical representations need also be different. PC/NPC transparency inevitably breaks things, because features that work for NPCs to use on the single scene they're "on screen" don't work for PCs who get to use them day in and day out. And vice versa. Plus, you have the inevitable world-building problem[1]: anyone with the proper skills to do their mundane job must also be able to fight off small armies. That king? Needs to be a high-level person. No possibility of having a weak (combat-wise) vizier who can manipulate people like an expert (or else any level 1 PC can also do that and the system shatters). You need all these "useless" abilities to flesh out the world, which means you have to bloat the system tremendously.

Instead, using 5e's system, you only pay attention to the parts that matter for the role of the character right now. You can simply give the NPCs the features they need to do their job. Don't have to play with numbers or give fake levels, bloating their HD. Etc.

I agree with all of this. The game exists for the enjoyment of the people at the table, so you use whatever tools are at hand to further that enjoyment.

To me there is no inherent value in PCs and NPCs working the same.

(Though to a DM who values that, many options are available.)

[denthor]

If NPC's and monsters die at zero hit points. How could you use skills like intimidate or torture. You could never interrogate anyone.

[Willie the Duck]

If NPC's and monsters die at zero hit points. How could you use skills like intimidate or torture. You could never interrogate anyone.

Well, check out the non-lethal damage rules. However, where did you get the idea that you can't intimidate or torture creatures without reducing their HP to 0?

[Bjarkmundur]

If it's not breaking anyone's suspension of disbelief, or further dissociating the combat mini game from the narrative, then I'm happy.

Besides, I usually wrap up combats in a narrative manner anyways, but it never hurts to ask ^^