Killing Players Without Waiting for Death Saves

[Cheesegear]

A post I made in another thread got me thinking about how to kill players.

There's the cheating way; The DM decides something, and the players just die. Sometimes they get a save. But at the end of the day, they're just dead due to the DM's discretion.

There's the obvious way; You take enough hit points to take you down to 0, then you fail Death Saves and die. Unfortunately, this is the easiest way for players to get around, due to extremely easy access to magic like Cure Wounds and Lay on Hands, and then of course there is the problematic pop-up heal via Healing Word, which skirts around making Death Saves, despite dropping to 0 every round.

So let's say you're a DM who wants to design an encounter with a reasonable chance of lethality. But, you know that your players have just boosted their AC, HP and Temp HP into the stratosphere, so hostiles that simply 'do damage' aren't exactly lethal anymore. However, there definitely are mechanics built into the game which just kill players without necessarily dealing HP damage, and relying on having action economy to spare actions to attack downed players:

Solar. Its a ranged attack. If you get hit with it, and have <100 Hit Points, CON save or die.

Basilisk. Start of turn, make a CON save. End of turn, make a CON save. If you fail both, you're Petrified. Which may as well count as death for lower-level characters (Basilisks are CR 3.)

Intellect Devourer. Make an opposed Intelligence check. If you lose, you die. IntDevs are CR 2. Good joke.

Lycanthropy. "The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed." Unless the Cleric has Remove Curse prepared right now, this will usually mean that the character is dead for all intents and purposes. At least they're removed from normal play.

Red Slaad. Make a CON save. If you fail you have a Disease. In three months you die.

Blue Slaad. Make a CON save. If you fail you have a Disease. Lose 3d6 max HPs every day until you die.

Will-o'-Wisp. Bonus Action. Target creature on 0 HPs makes a CON save or dies.

There's more. But that's what I've got off the top of my head.

Got any favourites?

[KorvinStarmast]

Red Slaad. Make a CON save. If you fail you have a Disease. In three months you die.

Blue Slaad. Make a CON save. If you fail you have a Disease. Lose 3d6 max HPs every day until you die.

I think that a paladin can remove that Slaad disease with the lay on hands ability.

Power word kill. (Lich has that IIRC)
Disintegrate. (Need to check on what NPCs have that as a default; Lich for sure but not sure about others).

Wraiths and Wights can kill a PC and bring them back as servants using Life Drain ability.

[Kvess]

In my experience, killing characters isn’t something to brag about. Player characters are extremely resilient until they aren’t; once multiple characters are down, outnumbered, and outgunned, they are not going to turn the encounter around. This happens fairly often in dungeon crawls when characters flee to an unexplored room midway through combat.

What is more challenging is finding ways to spare characters after a loss that don’t take the teeth out of a defeat.

[Unoriginal]

So the DM deciding there is a death effect is cheating, but if it's written in one of the books it's fair?

I entirely disagree with that premise.



What is more challenging is finding ways to spare characters after a loss that don’t take the teeth out of a defeat.

I mean, it comes down to "do those enemies have any reason to keep the PCs alive?"

A lot of sapient foes will want to know who the armed-to-the-teeth commandos who walked through their penthouse and slaughtered their guards are, at least to be able to prepare against a potential second assault or know what was the goal/who sent them. And a lot of D&D bad guys are slavers, too, so it's not like they're stranger to keeping enemies alive but in conditions challenging to escape from.

If they don't have a reason, well, the PCs are dead.

[quindraco]

Intellect Devourer. Make an opposed Intelligence check. If you lose, you die. IntDevs are CR 2. Good joke.

To be fair, to get to this point, all of this has to happen:

1) You fail a DC 12 Intelligence save against a range 10 effect.
2) A 3d6 meets or beats your Intelligence, stunning you.
3) On a subsequent turn - so the same Devourer on the next round, or a different Devourer later in the same round - you lose an opposed Intelligence check where your opponent has a +1 bonus; you win on ties, and you have a -5 Int bonus.

That's very dangerous - an Int 8 character without proficiency in the necessary save fails both the save and the 3d6 check 19/36 of the time, at which point the opposed check can be spammed - but it's not, like, instant. The devourer makes its check against an Int 0 target with no proficiency bonus (i.e. not a Bard with Jack of All Trades) 73.75% of the time. Your odds of dying right now to a pair of intellect devourerers if you're just an Int 8 Fighter are terrifyingly high - very slightly higher than 37%. But against a single Devourer, the party should reliably have the opportunity to have agency between the target dropping and the target dying.

The worst way to kill a PC is any method they genuinely have no agency over. The best way to kill a PC is for them to choose their death.

[Cheesegear]

So the DM deciding there is a death effect is cheating, but if it's written in one of the books it's fair?

I entirely disagree with that premise.

I've been around a while - this forum and others - and played at several tables.

Environments and creatures that the DM homebrews, are 'too hard' and 'unfair'. The DM shouldn't be so hard. Words and phrases like 'player agency' and 'fun' get thrown around.

Environments and creatures drawn directly out of the DMG or MM...Are part of the game. The DM is 'playing by the rules.' This creature is supposed to be able to kill you. That's why it's written the way that it is. Go blame Crawford, not your DM.

Cheating and fairness is the words I've seen used. Feel free to suggest more accurate ones. But those are the words I have in my head.

[Pex]

Barring the DM outright cheating/fiat, how isn't as important as how often. I cannot give an exact ratio of deaths per game session where it's fair but anything more is bad. There are obvious bad ratios. One death per game session is bad. One death per two game sessions is bad. One death per three game sessions is bad. Eventually there's some number X where one death per X game sessions is fine, but I cannot give a personal opinion value to X. There are also other factors. A DM who boasts of his PC death count should not be in the DM chair. PC death is not an amusing anecdote to laugh about. The ratio numerator does not have to be greater than 0. It is absolutely fine for an entire campaign to happen without one PC death. The DM should not root for a PC death. He should not be happy when it happens. He should also not be apathetic about it.

[Zuras]

At my table, the actual ways to die are:

Be first level, and get critted by the DM.

Fight something with an insta-death ability. Most common one is Zombie Beholders because one bad Dex save and you can be gone.

Fail death saves in a boss fight when nobody can get to you.

Answer “yes” when I ask you “are you sure?”

Sometimes something awesome happens after that, but that’s my announcement as a DM that whatever happens next, they are taking an action of consequence and should be prepared for a bad outcome if it turns out to be a bad idea or a foe beyond their capabilities.

[Zhorn]

For my two copper pieces;
The how and why of the game narrative is what makes it fair or unfair.
The DM can still throw entirely official creatures at the party and the resulting character death can still feel awfully unfair, be it through raw large damage, death by a thousand cuts, or 'if x the target dies' mechanics.

Example:
Fair death: level 3 players are fighting a bear in a forest outside a cave. Wizard player moves down from a safe elevated stone ledge get get into melee to use melee cantrips and is mauled to death.

Unfair death: level 3 players are at an inn, the person they saved from the last dungeon reveals themselves to be a high level evil mage capable of casting more than four 7+ level spells, the DM says they are trying to 'escape', proceeding to blast the party with high damage spells and using Teleport to move around the inn, and then once some of the party are down to 0 hp, grabs their bodies and Teleports away as to prevent any of the remaining PCs from stabilising/reviving before 3 failed death saves (seriously, if they were trying to escape and could teleport, why bother with the fight?).

in both cases the DM can point to a stat block in the book.
(why yes, these are oddly specific examples)

[Kvess]

I will also suggest that if you are putting a deadly encounter or a monster with an instant death effect in your game: Assume it will successfully kill at least one character.

Every DM that throws an intellect devourer or a beholder zombie at the party is always surprised when there is an instant death or indefinite incapacitation, and it really shouldn’t be a surprise. If it has the ability to instantly kill a character, then it should be a foreseen outcome.

[P. G. Macer]

A post I made in another thread got me thinking about how to kill players.

There's the cheating way; The DM decides something, and the players just die. Sometimes they get a save. But at the end of the day, they're just dead due to the DM's discretion.
There's the obvious way; You take enough hit points to take you down to 0, then you fail Death Saves and die.

But, additionally, there are other ways, designed ways, that hostiles can just kill you. When the players complain, the DM is fully within their rights to simply point to the page. This is part of the game. This is part of the creature's statblock. This is what the creature does. That's why this creature is hard. The DM didn't 'cheat.' The designers of the game actually made it this way on purpose:

Solar. Its a ranged attack. If you get hit with it, and have <100 Hit Points, CON save or die.

Basilisk. Start of turn, make a CON save. End of turn, make a CON save. If you fail both, you're Petrified. Which may as well count as death for lower-level characters (Basilisks are CR 3.)

Intellect Devourer. Make an opposed Intelligence check. If you lose, you die. IntDevs are CR 2. Good joke.

Lycanthropy. "The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed." Unless the Cleric has Remove Curse prepared right now, this will usually mean that the character is dead for all intents and purposes. At least they're removed from normal play.

Red Slaad. Make a CON save. If you fail you have a Disease. In three months you die.

Blue Slaad. Make a CON save. If you fail you have a Disease. Lose 3d6 max HPs every day until you die.

Will-o'-Wisp. Bonus Action. Target creature on 0 HPs makes a CON save or dies.

There's more. But that's what I've got off the top of my head.

Got any favourites?

One I’m planning on using for my 20th-Level campaign finale is the Molydeus, from Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes. It’s Demonic Weapon attack decapitates the target when it rolls a natural 20, assuming the target does not have legendary actions or is Huge or larger. Since PCs never get legendary actions RAW or RAI, that means it can insta-kill a full health, Level 20 PC that isn’t a Rune Knight or Moon Druid.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Red and Blue Slaads aren't that bad - lesser restoration is a 2nd level spell that cures a disease, and it's pretty widely available (Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger) all before 5th level, which matches the CR of the Red Slaad pretty well.

[Witty Username]

Shadow dragon breath weapon kills and turns the target into a shadow I believe if the target hits 0.

[Yspoch]

... PC death is not an amusing anecdote to laugh about. ...

I disagree. There are lots of amusing anecdotes of PCs dying. But i concede that it's only amusing if the player of that character can laugh about it too.

[Corvino]

It seems fair to kill PCs if they are given a choice, and choose an option where death is a likely outcome.

Heroic self-sacrifice is one example. Choosing to do something very dim, after the DM prompts "Are you sure you want to do that?" is another.

Or if the death has narrative power, and the player is likely to be OK with it. Dying in the final fight against the end boss of the campaign, while your companions bring them down - fine. Fail a single save in a random encounter - nope.

[JackPhoenix]

Lycanthropy. "The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed." Unless the Cleric has Remove Curse prepared right now, this will usually mean that the character is dead for all intents and purposes. At least they're removed from normal play.

And you only change your alignment if you embrace the curse, so it's pretty inefficient way to remove characters unless the player wants the character removed.

[Wraith]

The Vorpal Sword - Roll a natural 20 to hit, and the target is decapitated unless they're able to survive without a head, are immune to slashing damage, has Legendary actions, or the DM rules that they're too large to be affected by a much-too-small-weapon. Note that none of the above (except possibly an extremely unusual combination of abilities, like a Rune Knight's Giant Size and the Enlarge spell) prevents it from being used on Player Characters.

The Disintegrate spell - Take ~75 force damage, and if your HP go to 0 then you're immediately dead. In fact you're double-dead, because you've been killed by a level 6 spell which deletes all your non-magical items (including gold and precious gems) and can only be undone by a level 9 spell rather than a nice, easy, level 1 Revivify.

The Time Ravage spell - On a failed save you take a bunch of Necrotic damage, which is fun, but you also die within 30 days from old age. This can be reversed by a Wish or 9th-level-slot Greater Restoration, but if you're fighting a Medium or Hard encounter (ie, your 15th or 16th level party take on a 17th level Wizard) then you might not have that to hand and death-on-a-clock is the sort of thing that campaigns are built around.

A Shadow's Strength Drain attack - I like these guys because I think that a low-level threat (CR 1/2) with a way to instant-death a PC is hilarious. They drain 1d4 Strength with each hit - reach STR 0 and you're dead, and likely to rise as a Shadow yourself. Half a dozen Shadows is an appropriate encounter for level 4 players, but they have a big pile of resistances and immunities which can make them difficult to take down quickly so if they all dogpile one guy then that PC is in for a really bad time. All it takes is a couple of lucky hits and suddenly your tank is crippled or your Wizard is running for their life (if not already dead) and the whole encounter snowballs into disaster.

[stoutstien]

I've been around a while - this forum and others - and played at several tables.

Environments and creatures that the DM homebrews, are 'too hard' and 'unfair'. The DM shouldn't be so hard. Words and phrases like 'player agency' and 'fun' get thrown around.

Environments and creatures drawn directly out of the DMG or MM...Are part of the game. The DM is 'playing by the rules.' This creature is supposed to be able to kill you. That's why it's written the way that it is. Go blame Crawford, not your DM.

Cheating and fairness is the words I've seen used. Feel free to suggest more accurate ones. But those are the words I have in my head.

I believe the usual blame falls on DMs or published content that use material without a sound understanding of the odds of factors. Rocks fall everyone dies is just as bad as rocks fall because you failed 3 high DCs in a row and the average damage exceeds the average party members HP.

[Ashe]

PC death is not an amusing anecdote to laugh about.

That is such a broad statement that I'd say it's less true than it is, even speaking only on 5e.


I will also suggest that if you are putting a deadly encounter or a monster with an instant death effect in your game: Assume it will successfully kill at least one character.

I feel like this should be so obvious it doesn't even need to be said but at the same time I have had several 'intellect devourer bricks the party and party has to get bailed out by an npc' incidents in this edition because some DMs assuming that if it's official it won't be ridiculous or that it's somehow automatically well balanced.


Red and Blue Slaads aren't that bad - lesser restoration is a 2nd level spell that cures a disease, and it's pretty widely available (Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger) all before 5th level, which matches the CR of the Red Slaad pretty well.
Very much agreed here, assuming the DM isn't choosing to obfuscate the fact that this is even a thing/that it can be cured that easily in the case of red slaadi. It's the whole "does my character know trolls are weak to fire/acid" thing but because slaadi are outsiders and it's very reasonable that not every character will have even heard of them I see it every now and then that the DM essentially stealth killed a character months before anybody was any the wiser because the "you have 24 hours to live" part is likely to occur in downtime when the party is split up so the resident cleric/druid/paladin/whatever wasn't on call to stop them from dying, and then the DM is somehow confused that this is a bad thing to do without player buy-in on this sort of thing.

[Sandeman]

Player death should depend on player actions and decisions.
Being an adventurer is inherently dangerous. If players make stupid decisions that ends up killing them, it is fine. The DM shouldnt always try to save charachters as that breaks immersion.
But players dying from things completely out of their control is not fun.

[dreast]

You forgot the most common one at my table:

Goblins: the cowardly goblins stab the person who fell on the ground rather than go after PCs who can still defend themselves. After two stabs (auto-crits), the player is dead without ever getting a single death save.

This also applies to bandits, kobolds, etc.

[kingcheesepants]

There are a number of relatively low CR creatures with long term incapacitation or death effects (Medusas, Catoblepas, Banshees) but II'd say the Succubus kiss is probably my favorite instant death effect. If the Succubus can trick you into kissing her (and as a shapechanger with a high deception skill she should be able to) or charm you (DC 15 Wis save is nothing to scoff at), you will be only 1 con save away from around 32 (but up to 55) damage. This damage can easily be high enough to kill a level 4 PC, it can't be healed and if it brings the creature to 0 they are dead. It's not the most overpowered ability in the game but it's strong and the way that it can be done outside of combat is a little scary.

[Zhorn]

You forgot the most common one at my table:

Goblins: the cowardly goblins stab the person who fell on the ground rather than go after PCs who can still defend themselves. After two stabs (auto-crits), the player is dead without ever getting a single death save.

This also applies to bandits, kobolds, etc.

Ah yes, the good old "The Earth Elemental steps on your head to make sure you're dead".
It can be done in both right and wrong ways, but the general approach I've stuck with is an engage enemy focuses on the most immediate threats, while an unengaged enemy will pursue it's most immediate interest.
I'm fine with the monsters targeting downed PCs, but if feels wrong to have the monster attack the downed PC while the Barbarian is within 5ft and swinging a maul at it with intent.
An engage enemy has more immediate concerns than double-tapping a downed foe, but the danger is there should that enemy get enough of a break (not in immediate melee, not dodging projectiles). Makes the danger something the other players have a degree of control over.

[KorvinStarmast]

and can only be undone by a level 9 spell rather than a nice, easy, level 1 Revivify. Revivify is level 3. :smallsmile:

[Kvess]

I will also suggest that if you are putting a deadly encounter or a monster with an instant death effect in your game: Assume it will successfully kill at least one character.
I feel like this should be so obvious it doesn't even need to be said but at the same time I have had several 'intellect devourer bricks the party and party has to get bailed out by an npc' incidents in this edition because some DMs assuming that if it's official it won't be ridiculous or that it's somehow automatically well balanced.

It should be obvious, but every time a new DM runs an Intellect Devourer, Zombie Beholder for the first time they get blindsided. It happened to me: I targeted the party's wizard with an Intellect Devourer, thinking that the odds were in his favour. He failed his save and I rolled high. It turns out that unlikely outcomes are still possible outcomes.

If there is a high chance of instantly or irreversibly killing a character, it is worth considering how you will deal with death and what options are available for the party.

[Wraith]

Revivify is level 3. :smallsmile:

Fair enough, thank you for correcting me. I'll bear it in mind the next time my character has been atomized and I'm only 10 levels short of getting it fixed, instead of 16 as I thought. :smallbiggrin::smallwink:

[KorvinStarmast]

Fair enough, thank you for correcting me. I'll bear it in mind the next time my character has been atomized and I'm only 10 levels short of getting it fixed, instead of 16 as I thought. :smallbiggrin::smallwink: Customer service is our specialty :smallbiggrin:

[Demonslayer666]

...
Environments and creatures drawn directly out of the DMG or MM...Are part of the game. The DM is 'playing by the rules.' This creature is supposed to be able to kill you. That's why it's written the way that it is. Go blame Crawford, not your DM.
...

I would never blame the designers for the choices my DM makes.

[follacchioso]

A post I made in another thread got me thinking about how to kill players.
Hopefully you meant kill characters, not players! :biggrin:

I agree that a DM should never purposely find ways to kill a character. If you are looking for monsters that have save-or-die abilities, here are a few others:

- mummy and other undeadReduce their max HP until they disintegrate, unless they have access to the right spells

- feeblemind spell - Always dangerous, even for high level chars, if they don't have the right save proficiency.

- Quori possession - that should convert them to NPC, although they may find a way to revert it

[Avonar]

My personal favourite: the Gas Spore

Fail the CON save and you're diseased. You die in 1d12 hours. However halfway through that period you become poisoned, a way that you can give a little nudge for "Hey, something ain't right".

[loki_ragnarock]

You forgot the most common one at my table:

Goblins: the cowardly goblins stab the person who fell on the ground rather than go after PCs who can still defend themselves. After two stabs (auto-crits), the player is dead without ever getting a single death save.

This also applies to bandits, kobolds, etc.

This is what makes gnolls terrifying.

They get a free move and attack after downing someone... and nothing says that free attack has to be directed towards anyone other than the person they just downed.

[Yakk]

Solar. Its a ranged attack. If you get hit with it, and have <100 Hit Points, CON save or die.
[quote]
I mean, the attack already does an average of 43 damage. So if you are under 100 HP before the attack, almost half of the time you are also going to be KO'd already.

In melee, the solar does 49x2 damage.

Slaying Longbow is less accurate, requires a hit *and* a con save, and drops foes less effectively than just attacking with the greatsword.

It does kill instead of reduce to 0, admittedly.
Basilisk. Start of turn, make a CON save. End of turn, make a CON save. If you fail both, you're Petrified. Which may as well count as death for lower-level characters (Basilisks are CR 3.)
End of next turn.


Intellect Devourer. Make an opposed Intelligence check. If you lose, you die. IntDevs are CR 2. Good joke.
No?

Devour Intellect. The intellect devourer targets one creature it can see within 10 feet of it that has a brain. The target must succeed on a DC 12 Intelligence saving throw against this magic or take 11 (2d10) psychic damage. Also on a failure, roll 3d6: If the total equals or exceeds the target’s Intelligence score, that score is reduced to 0. The target is stunned until it regains at least one point of Intelligence.
Action to save. If you fail the save, roll 3d6. If that beats your int, reduced to 0 and stunned.

Then an action to kill.

Multiple devourers are nasty, or one with surprise and good initiative.

Lycanthropy. "The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed." Unless the Cleric has Remove Curse prepared right now, this will usually mean that the character is dead for all intents and purposes. At least they're removed from normal play.
Again, no.
"If the character embraces the curse, his or her alignment becomes the one defined by the lycanthrope. The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed."

If the character does not embrace the curse, they are just a cursed PC.


Red Slaad. Make a CON save. If you fail you have a Disease. In three months you die.

Blue Slaad. Make a CON save. If you fail you have a Disease. Lose 3d6 max HPs every day until you die.
Unless cured by a paladin or lessor restoration, a level 2 spell.


Will-o'-Wisp. Bonus Action. Target creature on 0 HPs makes a CON save or dies.
Yes, if reduced to 0 HP and near a Will-o'-Wisp.

Slurrp.

[Zuras]

It seems fair to kill PCs if they are given a choice, and choose an option where death is a likely outcome.

Heroic self-sacrifice is one example. Choosing to do something very dim, after the DM prompts "Are you sure you want to do that?" is another.

Or if the death has narrative power, and the player is likely to be OK with it. Dying in the final fight against the end boss of the campaign, while your companions bring them down - fine. Fail a single save in a random encounter - nope.


I agree it comes down to choice, or at least the knowing acceptance of risks. As such, killer random encounters can be fair too, if the players know the dangers and decide to take a short rest in the Caverns of Doom or similar.

The key point is knowing the dangers and making informed decisions. Having a creature with insta-death features wipe out an NPC or attack in a situation where action economy guarantees they will lose are good ways to telegraph the threat level if it’s an unfamiliar creature, but a random encounter with an Intellect Devourer in a location they are known to hang out and the PCs know how dangerous they are is random but not unforseeable, and falls into the DM fair play bucket for me.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I'm not sure about "favorites," but...

Deep water is CR 100 dangerous if you can't get out of it.

8 solid combatty encounters between long rests are also dangerous, especially if several of them happen rapidly before the party can short rest.

It's so hard to actually die when you are around allies (after tier 1) if you do everything RAW/AL-ish.

I don't try to kill my players. They do it to themselves. I even houserule hit points to be at or above average in case I miscalculate. (HP gained is number rolled OR hit die max minus number rolled, making the worst possible roll the unrounded average one. ex 4 on a d8.)

[False God]

Lycanthropy. "The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed." Unless the Cleric has Remove Curse prepared right now, this will usually mean that the character is dead for all intents and purposes. At least they're removed from normal play.

I take personal issue with an edition that has done a great deal to reduce the intrusion of "Alignment" (and that's a sarcastic air-quotes reading of Alignment) into the game and then still writes stuff like this. Especially considering there's no statement that any of the alignments any lycanthropy makes you are non-playable. And it's worsened by the fact that weretigers and werebears are N and NG. Two completely normal alignments for adventurers. From a storytelling POV it's even more annoying since some of the best stories are about managing the curse, coming to terms with having it, and using it to your advantage in certain situations and the game basically says "Nah, we're not going to tell those stories here."

Which is of course something the DM can always say. It just irritates me they had to write it down in permanent marker.

------

Anyway, I honestly don't put much thought into how to kill characters when I'm DM. I don't find its very productive for campaign design and I don't find it teaches the players anything useful. "Monsters are dangerous and could kill you" yeah no duh.

[KorvinStarmast]

It just irritates me they had to write it down in permanent marker. Yeah, particularly the weretiger/wearbear bit that you pointed out. Which leads us to "can't make up our minds on alignment" being the state of play.

------

Anyway, I honestly don't put much thought into how to kill characters when I'm DM. I don't find its very productive for campaign design and I don't find it teaches the players anything useful. "Monsters are dangerous and could kill you" yeah no duh. I had a DM who taught me this: "give 'em enough rope and they'll either hang themselves or make a nice macrame (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macram%C3%A9) with it."

[False God]

Yeah, particularly the weretiger/wearbear bit that you pointed out. Which leads us to "can't make up our minds on alignment" being the state of play.
It's one of those systems D&D would really just be better without. But I get the feeling from a lot of 5E that "design decisions" were made by playtesters, not the designers themselves (hence the whole thing feeling like a somewhat tightened-up and toned-down 3.5) and thus lacks a unifying central design direction.


I had a DM who taught me this: "give 'em enough rope and they'll either hang themselves or make a nice macrame (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macram%C3%A9) with it."
Yep. I really just don't like killing characters, if someone doesn't want to play their character anymore, I'll work with them to resolve the issue, but I'd rather have long-running characters who are familiar with the setting, have made connections, invested in the gameworld. I'll kill 'em if they're dumb enough, but it's gonna take some real dunder-headedness to get there.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'll kill 'em if they're dumb enough, but it's gonna take some real dunder-headedness to get there. Hydrogen and stupidity are the only two universal constants. And sometimes, the dice are fickle enough to hate a PC.

[Zuras]

Yep. I really just don't like killing characters, if someone doesn't want to play their character anymore, I'll work with them to resolve the issue, but I'd rather have long-running characters who are familiar with the setting, have made connections, invested in the gameworld. I'll kill 'em if they're dumb enough, but it's gonna take some real dunder-headedness to get there.

Never underestimate the role of greed and stupidity. My most important rule of DMing is that if the character knows something is dumb, you make sure the player knows before their decision is final. You can’t always stop players drunk on power from taunting the wrong NPCs, but asking “are you sure?” helps a lot to communicate that things just got serious.

[Randomthom]

Ghosts can age you to death Raiders of the Lost Ark style.

[Witty Username]

This is what makes gnolls terrifying.

They get a free move and attack after downing someone... and nothing says that free attack has to be directed towards anyone other than the person they just downed.

I recall a gnoll tactic guide that recommended exactly that, the idea being that it makes gnolls threatening and highlights their isatiable hunger. They in that moment can't overcome the desire to chomp on the downed opponent before moving to the next.

Edit: Removed the bloodthirsty Gnomes.

[False God]

Never underestimate the role of greed and stupidity. My most important rule of DMing is that if the character knows something is dumb, you make sure the player knows before their decision is final. You can’t always stop players drunk on power from taunting the wrong NPCs, but asking “are your sure” helps a lot to communicate that things just got serious.

Yeah, though I don't always use such words. Sometimes I'll repeat back to them what they said they were going to do as a question, to make sure I'm not misunderstanding their approach. But yeah, I do try to give them a heads up that they've stepped over the line from normal adventurer level dumb to you-gonna-die level dumb. It sometimes helps, but some folks seem to expect to be able to dumb their way through every situation.

They learn, or they get tired of my games.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I recall a gnoll tactic guide that recommended exactly that, the idea being that it makes gnomes threatening and highlights their isatiable hunger. They in that moment can't overcome the desire to chomp on the downed opponent before moving to the next.

You sir, have made my day. Now I'm off thinking about cannibalistic gnomes.

[Witty Username]

You sir, have made my day. Now I'm off thinking about cannibalistic gnomes.

I will strangle auto correct to death, with a tire iron. But I am glad you enjoyed it.

[Cheesegear]

So turns out I mistitled the thread, and then didn't get across the point I wanted to get across. That's my mistake. I get it. Let's try again:

There's the obvious way of killing players; Do enough hit point damage to a character, and then have them fail and/or accrue Failed Death Saves.
There's the...Really, really, really 'unfair' way of killing characters; Design a hostile, encounter or environment in which the players just can't win, and when they don't win, they die.

However, there are creatures in the Monster's Manual - and elsewhere - that are designed to be used, that don't kill players necessarily via hit point damage. You can't just Cure Wounds your way out of death, and you can't pop-up heal using Healing Word to escape death. The creature hits with an attack or an ability, and you're Just Dead if you fail the saving throw(s). What are those creatures?

[Kuulvheysoon]

Well, this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?635313-CR-for-CR-weakest-and-strongest-enemies) recently started covers most of them, to be honest.3

Rot Grubs, Shadows and Intellect Devourers are among the monsters that fit that criteria.

[Warlush]

FWIW I have always been more frustrated by DMs who stomp you in combat and then use NPCs to "save" you. If you're such a tough guy bad a$$ DM, pull the trigger.

[False God]

FWIW I have always been more frustrated by DMs who stomp you in combat and then use NPCs to "save" you. If you're such a tough guy bad a$$ DM, pull the trigger.

Ugh, I'd like to +1 this please.

It's even worse when it's some ultra-high-level uber-DMPC (this from a guy with such a small group I almost always run a DMPC) to whom this fight is no challenge at all.

[Warlush]

Ugh, I'd like to +1 this please.

It's even worse when it's some ultra-high-level uber-DMPC (this from a guy with such a small group I almost always run a DMPC) to whom this fight is no challenge at all.

Holy smokes did we play together?!?!

[Kuulvheysoon]

Heh. I've done that once.

Then another BBEG came and utterly annihilated that guy. Then he just stood there laughing long enough for the PCs to flee. I got to practice my evil laugh, and the players (who had met the super-powerful NPC earlier and instantly disliked him) had a good laugh at his fate.

[Witty Username]

You know what. Kobolds riding wolves, heck mounted Kobolds generally. Abuse that pack tactics.

[Oliver]

How to kill a character (Fairly)

Fairly is important here...

I've read very interesting answers, but in my humble opinion, most seem to miss this point.

(It doesn"t seem to be about "how to get rid of nasty players by killing their characters ASAP")

Actual DD is build around avoiding PC having an early death (level of encounter (balance), HP recuperation, spare the dying cantrip...) The point is to get a maximum of fun from the adventure (entertainment) with a just level of excitment (danger)

DD is not DESCENT; The DM isn't there to play AGAINST the PC, but WITH them.

So, a 'fair death' implies that the PC or his player actully AGREE to the possibility of dying (not as a vague possibility, but as a very actual one), because the stakes are high enough to make things intersting.

Being killed by a vague random encounter while going to the Dungeon isn't only vaguely unfair, but just not very interesting. The possibility 'spice' things up, but it's not 'burning the sea'...

Now, after one or several encounter, the PCS are actually wounded, low on spells, tired... but insists to keep entering the Dungeon without a rest (maybe because, according to their intel the defense will be low at a precise hour, or maybe according to their deadline, waiting too much is really dangerous for the nearly village) => they are taking a volontary risk.

If some of them dies from this decision, after more or less subtle warning from the DM, their death are fair.

They face the direct consequences of their decisions and actions.

Another exemple is about the value of the opponent. 'So, we did the Dungeon, defeat its foes...exept the Lich King. If we got back now, we will be rich, but if we defeat him, we will be LEGENDS !

The third example is about a death that not only is a consequence of the actions of the PCS, but a consequences of their own values and background.

The Holly Paladin who sacrifice itself for a 'higer purpose, the Samurai who die defeating the traitor that betray his beloved master, the 'good' rogue who happily goes to the galey after putting its familly out of misery...

Maybe the PC death meant nothing to your scenario's goal, but from their point of view, if they die while doing what was REALLY important for them, it's not only a fair death, it's also a GOOD death.
And 'good death are hard to find', would say the Poet.

==> To sum it up, a 'fair' death is a consequence of the player action, with clear stakes, volontary risk-taking and if possible, personal reasons that makes the 'win' or the 'loose' memorable.

And if i'm not totally wrong about thing, it might be a good idea to to balance the scenario 'risks' with the 'rewards' above, making the 'drama' of the scenario aligned with the actual story and the PCs best interests.

[Cheesegear]

How to kill a character (Fairly)

Again, I take full responsibility for the misleading title and the improperly worded OP.


Being killed by a vague random encounter while going to the Dungeon...

Nobody should be killed during a random encounter. Partly because random encounters are stupid. All encounters should be intentional.

If the DM wants Ogres on the road, then Ogres are on the road.
If the DM tells players where the Ogres are, then with minor nomadic variation, that's where the Ogres are going to be - unless the DM lied in-game with a faulty/old map, or an NPC lied to them about where the Ogres are in order for the PCs to walk into a trap, or similar, or circumstances changed due to the character's actions where they have a Horn of Ogre Summoning which Geas-es all Ogres to their location within 30 miles.

The DM shouldn't roll a dice to determine whether or not Ogres are on the road. That's silly.

What I've clarified to far is very simple:

Let's the DM wants to design a boss fight, with a reasonable chance of lethality. That's a fair assumption to make.

However, damage-dealers and hit-point sponges are pretty lame. The party casters just cast their highest damage-dealing AoEs on Round 1 and half the encounter is done already (See another recent thread about why hostiles having Counterspell, matters). All's the players have to do is optimise their characters in such a way that their damage output is way, way, way higher than their damage input. After a while, that kind of lethality gets boring. Primarily because of Cure Wounds and other healing magic (e.g; Lay on Hands) being so accessible, and of course a lot of DMs - including myself - see Healing Word as problematic because it's a ranged Bonus Action which is nuts. I can't remember the exact thread. But it's been talked about, too.

Bringing me to my current topic: There are actual designed mechanics, by Crawford et al., where a DM can introduce potential lethality without directly dealing hit point damage and/or having failed death saves, getting around healing, and making fights more interesting, because the challenge of the encounter isn't necessarily just a function of damage input and output. The fight is more about not failing two saving throws. What are those?

Unfortunately, by this point it's way too late to change the title and OP.

[Unoriginal]

The DM shouldn't roll a dice to determine whether or not Ogres are on the road. That's silly.

Wandering monsters are a thing, and there is nothing wrong for a DM to roll to see what events happens on the road if they want some randomness.

After all, it's not a given X stays at Y spot all day every day. "Ogres are in this region" isn't the same as "the PCs will run into Ogres sitting idly". The table could have things like "the Ogres are attacking a merchant as the PCs approaches", "the Ogres are sleeping after a night of drinking" or "the Ogres aren't there today because [X thing that will affect the rest of the adventure]"

The DM still chooses what is on the table they roll, it's not like the table is going to roll and then be surprised the party is fighting 5 Purple Worms while they're walking in the little forest behind the starting village.



Unfortunately, by this point it's way too late to change the title and OP.

It really isn't, Cheesegear. If you want to do it, you can edit the title and just put an EDIT indicator in the OP. I'm sure nobody will be bothered by that.

[Glorthindel]

I take personal issue with an edition that has done a great deal to reduce the intrusion of "Alignment" (and that's a sarcastic air-quotes reading of Alignment) into the game and then still writes stuff like this. Especially considering there's no statement that any of the alignments any lycanthropy makes you are non-playable. And it's worsened by the fact that weretigers and werebears are N and NG. Two completely normal alignments for adventurers. From a storytelling POV it's even more annoying since some of the best stories are about managing the curse, coming to terms with having it, and using it to your advantage in certain situations and the game basically says "Nah, we're not going to tell those stories here."

Which is of course something the DM can always say. It just irritates me they had to write it down in permanent marker.


Frankly, I go the other way, and think that the idea that a player could seek out Lycanthropy for a sweet power buff properly winds me up, even more so, now they can just embrace-away the negatives. Lycanthropy is a curse, and all literature and use of it prior to D&D (and even most previous editions of D&D shared this attitude) was to make it clear that someone infected by Lycanthropy is an uncontrollable monster, not just "Dave with a cool new weapon immunity". Frankly, I am glad they put that line in so that a DM can make a stand on the issue and say "No, you embrace the curse you are not you any more" without being bitched at over "RAW" and "Houserules".

[Cheesegear]

make it clear that someone infected by Lycanthropy is an uncontrollable monster, not just "Dave with a cool new weapon immunity". Frankly, I am glad they put that line in so that a DM can make a stand on the issue and say "No, you embrace the curse you are not you any more" without being bitched at over "RAW" and "Houserules".

I had a player who just said "Oh I resist the Curse, I'm still me."

'Kay. One night I took control of the character and went on a rampage. The other players due to their reputation were woken up in the middle of the night and contracted to hunt the monster down. The other players had to kill the Lycanthrope'd character. Got half a session out of it or so, and a meaningful death about how the other players had to put down their own friend who'd been adventuring with them for a half a year or so. Much pathos.

At my table, Lycanthropy is definitely a Curse, not 'Bonus STR, cool new abilities, and Immunity to non-magical BPS.'

[Amnestic]

Lycanthropy is a curse, and all literature and use of it prior to D&D (and even most previous editions of D&D shared this attitude) was to make it clear that someone infected by Lycanthropy is an uncontrollable monster,

Why should we care about its use 'prior to D&D'? Surely our focus should be on its implementation in this edition, an implementation which is internally inconsistent, given that:
a) not all lycanthropes are evil, per weretigers and
b) even if they were, evil characters are like...allowed? They're not banned, and
c) FR appears to be the de facto "standard" setting for 5e (as evidenced by the majority of adventures taking place there I guess), and there's a number of good werewolf characters which are not uncontrollable monsters in the lore for that setting, from long before 5e, even.

Wouldn't really make much sense in a 3.5 capacity to have them be 'uncontrollable monsters', and even less so two decades later.

[KorvinStarmast]

In Tomb of Annihilation, there's a very tall place where flying creatures can push or pull or grapple and drop PCs. The encounter looks like it's meant for Tier 1 or early Tier 2 PCs. A 200 or 300 foot drop from that precipice, particularly if the player had already taken some damage, is a likely Death Due To Too Much Damage, and it's reasonably fair.
20d6 averages 70 damage.
It's combat and various chances/choices to defeat or run off the avian foes do exist.

[False God]

Frankly, I go the other way, and think that the idea that a player could seek out Lycanthropy for a sweet power buff properly winds me up, even more so, now they can just embrace-away the negatives. Lycanthropy is a curse, and all literature and use of it prior to D&D (and even most previous editions of D&D shared this attitude) was to make it clear that someone infected by Lycanthropy is an uncontrollable monster, not just "Dave with a cool new weapon immunity". Frankly, I am glad they put that line in so that a DM can make a stand on the issue and say "No, you embrace the curse you are not you any more" without being bitched at over "RAW" and "Houserules".

As I pointed out, the DM can always make that stand. The designers could also have chosen to not include player-facing sidebars about what happens when you get lycanthropy. But nooooo, they included lycanthropy as essentially a player option. The DM has complete control over what monsters exist and how they work, we don't need a special note reminding the DM we can just poof away players who did something we don't like.

If your players are powergaming by going out and getting themselves "cursed", what they've failed to consider is that the inclusion of lycanthropes in the game also means there are lycanthrope hunters.

And "all the literature" doesn't say that. Not to mention we're talking about at least 3 different species of were-creatures which are sourced from multiple myths from multiple cultures.

[CapnWildefyr]

Why should we care about its use 'prior to D&D'? Surely our focus should be on its implementation in this edition, an implementation which is internally inconsistent, given that:
a) not all lycanthropes are evil, per weretigers and
b) even if they were, evil characters are like...allowed? They're not banned, and
c) FR appears to be the de facto "standard" setting for 5e (as evidenced by the majority of adventures taking place there I guess), and there's a number of good werewolf characters which are not uncontrollable monsters in the lore for that setting, from long before 5e, even.

Wouldn't really make much sense in a 3.5 capacity to have them be 'uncontrollable monsters', and even less so two decades later.

The problem is that usually PCs get attacked by the evil lycanthropes. The evil lycans do little things... like EAT THEIR FRIENDS AND FAMILY. It's not about alignment, were-creatures attack the things they love the most -- it's part of the curse. In a way, an evil party might be safer from a party member who becomes a werewolf -- they probably don't like each other anyway. :smallwink:

As far a Cheesgear's question, any encounter can turn ugly. Little things like disease and poison -- sure there are spells, but (1) you have to recognize the threat/symptoms, and (2) you have to have that spell prepared or whatever. Even a lowly goblin can attack you with a sword that was just dipped in filth/demon ichor/whatever.

Diseases can be bad, too. Again, you have to recognize them. If you have a disease that attacks Wis, but fail your save, you're less likely each time to realize that you're losing wisdom! (or int). Losing strength is more obvious, but losing Con -- a character won't know because they failed a save they'd normally make, so a player can't say "hey, what's wrong here?" unless there's a pattern or some rationale. (Well, they can, and will, but as DM you can make them roleplay at least a little bit.)

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Shadow can also kill you by making your str 0.

Divine word can kill you if you have low enough HP similar to power word kill.


Fair enough, thank you for correcting me. I'll bear it in mind the next time my character has been atomized and I'm only 10 levels short of getting it fixed, instead of 16 as I thought. :smallbiggrin::smallwink:

The problem is that sometimes you need greater restoration.

Petrified is similar to death but need an higher level spell to reverse(the cleric in my ToA game got petrified by a beholder, a dex save when you are restrained is hard to pass with low dex.

[Zhorn]

The problem is that usually PCs get attacked by the evil lycanthropes. The evil lycans do little things... like EAT THEIR FRIENDS AND FAMILY. It's not about alignment, were-creatures attack the things they love the most -- it's part of the curse. In a way, an evil party might be safer from a party member who becomes a werewolf -- they probably don't like each other anyway. :smallwink:
Life is an adventure
Adventuring is a job
Never work with family, loved ones, or children.
:smallbiggrin:

[Slipjig]

Diseases can be bad, too. Again, you have to recognize them. If you have a disease that attacks Wis, but fail your save, you're less likely each time to realize that you're losing wisdom! (or int). Losing strength is more obvious, but losing Con -- a character won't know because they failed a save they'd normally make, so a player can't say "hey, what's wrong here?" unless there's a pattern or some rationale. (Well, they can, and will, but as DM you can make them roleplay at least a little bit.)

I don't know if it's explicitly RAW, but it seems like any disease that drains physical attributes would be obvious to the effected character pretty quickly. The first point or two might be written off as sniffles or aches and pains, but by the time you are down 3+ points it should be obvious that something is really wrong, even if you aren't sure exactly what is happening. Diseases where everything seems fine until the victim drops dead are not the norm.

This is also an opportunity for the DM to be creative: discoloration or festering (or maggots) around the point of infection, racking coughs, difficulty walking without assistance. Diseases that impact mental states could also have symptoms like blurry vision or blanking on things they should know.

[False God]

Life is an adventure
Adventuring is a job
Never work with family, loved ones, or children.
:smallbiggrin:

Rule of Acquisition #110: Exploitation begins at home.

[MaxWilson]

Life is an adventure
Adventuring is a job
Never work with family, loved ones, or children.
:smallbiggrin:

Family aren't included in loved ones?

[Slipjig]

Probably not? 95% of PCs where I know the family background either the parents are villainous (or at least awful) or their murder fuels the character's quest for vengeance.

[Witty Username]

Family aren't included in loved ones?

Yes, to cover edge cases like Shadow Weaver.

[PhantomSoul]

Probably not? 95% of PCs where I know the family background either the parents are villainous (or at least awful) or their murder fuels the character's quest for vengeance.

95% after excluding orphans, not just empty-background characters, right? Because oh boy the personality test for becoming an adventurer seems to just be one question asking if you're currently in (conventional) contact with at least one parent.

[PhoenixPhyre]

95% after excluding orphans, not just empty-background characters, right? Because oh boy the personality test for becoming an adventurer seems to just be one question asking if you're currently in (conventional) contact with at least one parent.

My current party has two who are in active contact with their living parents (both of their mothers are dead), and two whose parents are still alive and they could go back and contact them if they wanted. One character is even a father and his son has figured in prominently, as did his ex wife. Who is now very very dead, because the character slew her for cause (she was evil and sleeping with his twin brother).

[Pex]

You cannot blame players for playing the only child orphan when they do have living family the DM always has the bad guys kidnap and/or kill them.

[Glorthindel]

95% after excluding orphans, not just empty-background characters, right? Because oh boy the personality test for becoming an adventurer seems to just be one question asking if you're currently in (conventional) contact with at least one parent.

Its one thing I find amusing about the many (many) character creation tables in the first edition of Hackmaster. Having living, loving parents is worth a whopping 10 Build Points (5 for each parent), which is more than you get for most Race and Class choices - I have seen players frequently use BP's to reroll on that table in order to score those valuable Loving Parent BP's, more so than with any other table in the book. I think its pretty ironic that Hackmaster of all games (being mainly a murderhobo parody game) is the one to incentivise not being a gritty-backstory orphan!

[Unoriginal]

You cannot blame players for playing the only child orphan when they do have living family the DM always has the bad guys kidnap and/or kill them.

DMs who do that are so annoying.

[CapnWildefyr]

I don't know if it's explicitly RAW, but it seems like any disease that drains physical attributes would be obvious to the effected character pretty quickly. The first point or two might be written off as sniffles or aches and pains, but by the time you are down 3+ points it should be obvious that something is really wrong, even if you aren't sure exactly what is happening. Diseases where everything seems fine until the victim drops dead are not the norm.

That all was was asking for. Feeling a little tired, you really had to rest up after that adventure, etc. After a while, except for Wis and Int drain which you yourself might not notice, you will realize your Con or Str is dwindling. (For Wis and Int, think about stroke victims - easy to remember you used to be able to manipulate things with your hands, but it's hard to realize you're not thinking clearly, or that your personality changed.) For most diseases, the question is: Have you already left town? Can a party member fix it? Disease or curse?

Wis and Int drain might be more noticeable by the rest of the party, if the player plays it right - like the guy who doesn't gamble playing 3 card monte at a street stall (Wis loss), or the wizard not remembering his favorite pedantic rants.

[Keltest]

DMs who do that are so annoying.

Going after family is one of the stronger ways to get a PC personally invested in the quest. Its easier than making them a Prophesized Chosen One that the BBEG wants to preventatively kill.

[PhantomSoul]

Going after family is one of the stronger ways to get a PC personally invested in the quest. Its easier than making them a Prophesized Chosen One that the BBEG wants to preventatively kill.

And, IMO, way better. (And it can even be something like "your mom's a merchant and pirates are making trade riskier and more difficult", which gives a perfectly reasonable in-character reason to care about something the player/party wanted to resolve, and the family wasn't even in danger. Similarly, a sibling or a parent asking for help could carry more weight, and they're just concerned about something while being at no personal risk.)

[Xervous]

Going after family is one of the stronger ways to get a PC personally invested in the quest. Its easier than making them a Prophesized Chosen One that the BBEG wants to preventatively kill.

Or alternatively, you could ensure at session 0 that the characters have the sort of personalities that will bite and follow your plot hooks. Targeting family members is generally an end of the road option that should see use after various escalations, not a default button you press to coerce character involvement.

[Unoriginal]

Going after family is one of the stronger ways to get a PC personally invested in the quest. Its easier than making them a Prophesized Chosen One that the BBEG wants to preventatively kill.

Going after family all the time is one of the strongest ways to get the player disinterested about the family.

Especially when the family gets killed or is otherwise impossible to save, like Pex and I were talking about..

If you want the PCs' families to matter for the players, them being in danger should be a shocking momenr, not a regular Tuesday.

EDIT: I'm not talking about "this threat will affect my family, so I'm opposing it" as character motivation, I'm talking about "the bad guys are threatening my family right now" plot points.

[Kuulvheysoon]

If I have to involve a PCs family, I tend to make them indebted to the Enemy in some way. The Enemy has a vested interest in keeping them alive (in order to pay off their debt/service/whatever), but the PC tends to not like their family being indebted to the Enemy like that.

[KorvinStarmast]

My current party has two who are in active contact with their living parents (both of their mothers are dead), and two whose parents are still alive and they could go back and contact them if they wanted. One character is even a father and his son has figured in prominently, as did his ex wife. Who is now very very dead, because the character slew her for cause (she was evil and sleeping with his twin brother). Are you trying to guilt my bard into writing a letter home to "Dear Mom and Dad?" :smallbiggrin:
FWIW, I have been thinking about that. One of my ideas to help my home town build a better pier and dock facility involves polymorphing a few times each day into a mammoth or other massive beast, and dragging felled trees down to the shore for the folks to use as pilings. Will need to set up that project before I come home for a visit.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Are you trying to guilt my bard into writing a letter home to "Dear Mom and Dad?" :smallbiggrin:
FWIW, I have been thinking about that. One of my ideas to help my home town build a better pier and dock facility involves polymorphing a few times each day into a mammoth or other massive beast, and dragging felled trees down to the shore for the folks to use as pilings. Will need to set up that project before I come home for a visit.

Just noting it.

My policy is that backstory folks aren't messed with unless the player gives me the ok, and named people don't get threatened unless there's a way for the PC to intervene (or not, should they choose).

Now if players give me permission...<glances at Nyx, Tsen, and Zeke's family>...:smallbiggrin:

Edit: oh, and the spoilered piece actually ties in relatively well (at a broader scope) with the project to build a fleet down there and the harp/squid/fleet issue you heard about at the end of last session.

[KorvinStarmast]

oh, and the spoilered piece actually ties in relatively well (at a broader scope) with the project to build a fleet down there and the harp/squid/fleet issue you heard about at the end of last session. Not to mention the mercantile interests of the Benevolent organization ... :smallconfused: And a counter to the ship folk ... man, my bard's to do list keeps growing! :smalleek:

[False God]

Or alternatively, you could ensure at session 0 that the characters have the sort of personalities that will bite and follow your plot hooks. Targeting family members is generally an end of the road option that should see use after various escalations, not a default button you press to coerce character involvement.

I tend to agree that the bigger issue is not that DMs want to go after family in-game (it's a pretty common trope across supers-media at least), but that characters/players don't want to invest in the setting. They're all lone wolf lose-cannon cops living life on the edge with nothing to gain and nothing to live for.

And it's not an issue that comes up later, most characters start off this way. They're exiles or orphans or black sheep or vampire/werewolf-hybrids with no home and no family as soon as they hit the table.

IMO, whats worse is investing in the setting tends to require a full party wanting to invest, and having 1 guy who is a lone wolf black sheep lose cannon can keep the entire party from being able to invest.

[KorvinStarmast]

IMO, whats worse is investing in the setting tends to require a full party wanting to invest, and having 1 guy who is a lone wolf black sheep lose cannon can keep the entire party from being able to invest. Yeah, yet another problem with edge lord players, or "this game is about my story" players.

investing in the setting tends to require a full party wanting to invest
I have yet to have a group I DM for in the past three years invest as a full party. A few to most will, but so far, not all. As a DM, I can't force it but it does disappoint me.

As a player, the group that for sure invests - all four of us - is the game I am in with Phoenix as DM.
And I love it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As a player, the group that for sure invests - all four of us - is the game I am in with Phoenix as DM.
And I love it.

So do I. For exactly that reason. Having players invested in the setting makes me, as someone who gets most of their fun out of worldbuilding and seeing what people do with it, really really excited. Which, I think, helps players get invested. Win win.

[MaxWilson]

And, IMO, way better. (And it can even be something like "your mom's a merchant and pirates are making trade riskier and more difficult", which gives a perfectly reasonable in-character reason to care about something the player/party wanted to resolve, and the family wasn't even in danger. Similarly, a sibling or a parent asking for help could carry more weight, and they're just concerned about something while being at no personal risk.)

I also like, "Your idiot brother's gambling debts have reached absolutely staggering heights and the local mafia are losing patience. Before they can start taking body parts, you need to score some big cash. Fortunately you hear a rumor about a mysterious castle..."


Or alternatively, you could ensure at session 0 that the characters have the sort of personalities that will bite and follow your plot hooks. Targeting family members is generally an end of the road option that should see use after various escalations, not a default button you press to coerce character involvement.

Or the family members are part of the session zero arrangement.

"My PC has a large family who are always being themselves into trouble with gambling debts, petty crime, and reckless adventuring. They will often need rescue and I don't have the heart to hang any of them out to dry, so I'll grumble and rant but then I'll risk my life to save them from their own stupidity. Again."

[sithlordnergal]

Funnily enough the Star Spawn Mangler does this in a round about way. If you use Flurry of Claws, you're locked into attacking a singular character 6 times. Now, generally its damage is only kind of decent, but if it ends up with advantage it gets to make 6 attacks, and each attack deals an average of 15 damage. Given you have advantage, you're probably going to crit with at least 1 attack. The ability specifically states it makes its 6 attacks against one target, so you can't change targets once a player goes down, and its only a CR 5. So most players won't have 90+ hp to survive all those attacks.

If a player goes down in 4 attacks or less, they're going to instantly die due to being attacked while downed. And you can't really say much because its the DM following the creature's ability.

[False God]

Yeah, yet another problem with edge lord players, or "this game is about my story" players.

investing in the setting tends to require a full party wanting to invest
I have yet to have a group I DM for in the past three years invest as a full party. A few to most will, but so far, not all. As a DM, I can't force it but it does disappoint me.

As a player, the group that for sure invests - all four of us - is the game I am in with Phoenix as DM.
And I love it.

I always find it odd, because I would think the "lone moose lose carrot cop vampire/wheremutt edgelord" type would be looking for some place to call home. Or if they can't find one, make one. But that would require a character to develop beyond a 2D role that was once played by Mel Gibson.

But as I've mentioned in other threads, character growth often requires player growth. And a substantial number of people are still in this for the "I hit it with my axe." violence-as-a-stress-relief gameplay and nothing more.

[KorvinStarmast]

And a substantial number of people are still in this for the "I hit it with my axe." violence-as-a-stress-relief gameplay and nothing more. One of my usual players does that, but with fireball. His RP is mostly "Wait, are you sure you want to mess with us?"

[PhoenixPhyre]

And a substantial number of people are still in this for the "I hit it with my axe." violence-as-a-stress-relief gameplay and nothing more.

I had a player who was like that, but also showed significant personal growth as a result of being able to do that. Or maybe just increased openness.

Little (like...4'10", maybe 90 lbs) 8th-grade girl who only came to the high-school D&D club because her older brother was joining. Her teachers said she'd said a grand total of 3 words in class the previous year. Super soft-spoken, super shy.

Her character (chosen with no knowledge other than I described it as "gets mad and hits things with big weapons") was a 7' dragonborn barbarian. Her default approach? "Can we kill it?" Her eyes lit up whenever there was a chance to "axe things questions". In fact, she was by far the most bloodthirsty player there...and it wasn't clear whether it was the character or her. Who knew that inside this tiny shy girl was a raging demon howling for blood?

But as the semester went on, she got more and more involved and opened up and would actually talk about things. And say hi in the halls. It was amazing. So don't denigrate "violence as stress relief" gameplay.

[Cheesegear]

I don't know if it's explicitly RAW, but it seems like any disease that drains physical attributes would be obvious to the effected character pretty quick.

It's obvious immediately, because the DM asks the player to alter their character sheet. The instant that happens, the player knows that something is wrong.

That's arguably why the Red Slaad's Disease works so well. The symptoms are only noticeable for 24 hours, and then you're dead. There's no slow drain so you can fix it later when you find a town. You fix it now, when symptoms appear, or you're likely dead. You can only Long Rest once every 24 hours. Some DMs rule that weirdly. But I rule that you can only Long Rest at least 16 hours after the last one ended.

So, hour 1: The player has Disadvantage on everything and has tummy aches with half movement.
Cleric: I cast Remove Curse!
Me: That does nothing. You have reason to believe that either a) It's not a Curse, or b) It's a Curse so powerful that a Level 3 spell wont do it. It might be a narrative Curse, that requires narrative solutions. Or maybe...It's not a Curse.

Alright...Wait 16 hours, the Cleric takes a Long Rest to prepare Cure Disease and...16+8...That's 24 hours. Dead. Now there's a Slaadpole.

The main problem with Red Slaads is that you can only do that to a player or group once. Once they know the answer to 'Why did I roll a CON save when it hit me, and why did nothing happen when I rolled low?', you can't really ever use a Red Slaad ever again.

[Pex]

Going after family is one of the stronger ways to get a PC personally invested in the quest. Its easier than making them a Prophesized Chosen One that the BBEG wants to preventatively kill.

That's exactly why you get no sibling orphans. Those players are sick and tired of DMs killing off their character's families. Having a family is the Thing that has them engaged with the game world. They want to deal with family in downtime. They want the distraction of family life. Maybe just writing home and telling them about all their adventures is enough. Maybe after several adventures the current one by coincidence the party has to travel through a PC's hometown, Everyone gets to meet the family and it's one game session of all roleplay interacting with the family with playful teasing and minor embarrassment of the PC. It's a stress reliever from the dangers of the Plot.

[Wraith]

In a similar spirit to diseases, I've been trying to think of NPCs who would reasonably and consistently makes use of venoms.

Not necessarily their own venom, although some of them are pretty gnarly - Giant Centipede have venom that requires a DC11 save or hits you for 3d6, and despite being CR¼ it's possible for them to one shot - even Massive Damage to death - a level 1 PC on a lucky hit, let alone a crit. Most venoms don't do so much damage, but 3d6 is comparatively a lot for such a low level encounter.

Rather than that, I was thinking of manufactured venoms. A lone Goblin has exactly the same CR as a lone Goblin armed with an envenomed blade, so a GM who isn't paying attention, or who is ill-advisedly looking to add some one-use spice to an encounter, can maim or kill a player on a single unlucky save.

Purple Wurm Venom is save vs DC19 or take 12d6 - scaring one PC with an unexpected handful of damage dice is all fun and games until you roll a 60+ and their heart explodes on the spot. You'd have to be an inconsiderate DM and an unlucky player, of course, but it works.

Other poisons are more subtle, but still completely lack a CR and so swing the balance of the encounter all over the place. Torpor incapacitates you for 4d6 hours and doesn't have the usual "you can be shaken awake" caveat or even additional chances to save. Fail the first one, and you're out and vulnerable to Coup De Grace for pretty much the rest of the day.

Even more swingy, the poison Pale Tincture is a preventable death waiting to happen. If you swallow it and fail your save, you are effectively poisoned with a technical duration of "forever", taking unhealable damage every day in the meantime. A week is a long time to go without memorizing a Cure Poison spell or bumping into a friendly Paladin, sure, but without magcal intervention you don't stop taking damage until you pass 7 saves. It's DC16 and you dumped CON - Are you feeling lucky?

Requires a run of bad luck? Yes. Also requires a dumbass DM? Yes. Could it never, ever happen? ....Well? :smalltongue:

[Kuulvheysoon]

I mean, if we want to be mean grab Spider Eater venom from 3.5e. It's got a paralysis venom that has a duration measured in weeks. (Secondary) damage of paralysis for 1d8 + 5 weeks.

Funniest part? It's in the Monster Manual (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/spiderEater.htm). Not even an expansion.

[False God]

I had a player who was like that, but also showed significant personal growth as a result of being able to do that. Or maybe just increased openness.

Little (like...4'10", maybe 90 lbs) 8th-grade girl who only came to the high-school D&D club because her older brother was joining. Her teachers said she'd said a grand total of 3 words in class the previous year. Super soft-spoken, super shy.

Her character (chosen with no knowledge other than I described it as "gets mad and hits things with big weapons") was a 7' dragonborn barbarian. Her default approach? "Can we kill it?" Her eyes lit up whenever there was a chance to "axe things questions". In fact, she was by far the most bloodthirsty player there...and it wasn't clear whether it was the character or her. Who knew that inside this tiny shy girl was a raging demon howling for blood?

But as the semester went on, she got more and more involved and opened up and would actually talk about things. And say hi in the halls. It was amazing. So don't denigrate "violence as stress relief" gameplay.

And I don't mind at all when a player starts a game, or is new to D&D or gaming that their investment in it is shallow and their desires are narrow. They may be holding their cards close to their chest for the time when they really feel like this game is worth investing in. And thats fine, lord knows I've done it.

I'm not going to deny my interests and desires have changed greatly during my life and playing with different people and what I'm looking for now isn't what I was looking for then. But it becomes difficult to play with people who over much of the same timespan never change. Every game and every session no matter what the context or style or system is, is just an excuse for their personal desire to be a troublemaker or an outlet for their frustrations in life.

It's fine on the micro-level, a session here, a moment there, a game there. But all the time? No, no thank you.

[MaxWilson]

That's arguably why the Red Slaad's Disease works so well. The symptoms are only noticeable for 24 hours, and then you're dead. There's no slow drain so you can fix it later when you find a town. You fix it now, when symptoms appear, or you're likely dead. You can only Long Rest once every 24 hours. Some DMs rule that weirdly. But I rule that you can only Long Rest at least 16 hours after the last one ended.

So, hour 1: The player has Disadvantage on everything and has tummy aches with half movement.
Cleric: I cast Remove Curse!
Me: That does nothing. You have reason to believe that either a) It's not a Curse, or b) It's a Curse so powerful that a Level 3 spell wont do it. It might be a narrative Curse, that requires narrative solutions. Or maybe...It's not a Curse.

Alright...Wait 16 hours, the Cleric takes a Long Rest to prepare Cure Disease and...16+8...That's 24 hours. Dead. Now there's a Slaadpole.

Wouldn't this only happen if the Slaad's birth just happened to coincide exactly with the end of the party's long rest? (Call it 6 a.m.) But if the Slaad is scheduled to be born at noon, the aches will appear at noon the day before, and the cleric will have Lesser Restoration ready by 6 a.m., six hours before the scheduled birth.

[Tvtyrant]

A post I made in another thread got me thinking about how to kill players.


Something special in the brownies?

[KorvinStarmast]

Something special in the brownies? For large groups, Kool Aid seems to be preferred. :smalleek: For a PC party, just serve them the salmon mousse (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obioF4_c6RM). (Start at about 4:35)

[Cheesegear]

Given the way that the thread has gone...It seems like there really isn't that many non-HP-related ways to kill characters, and the ones I had off the top of my head in the OP is basically all the ones that there are.

That's...Lame.

Ah well. Disintegrate is a great spell. The problem is that it's a spell, and there are ways around spells.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I mean... 5E makes it really hard to kill PCs, so it would make sense that they've intentionally kept instant-kill effects rare.

If you want more, you'll likely have to turn to homebrew, I'm afraid.

[J-H]

I have a 15th level Zealot Barbarian in my high-level game, so this has been really helpful. Team Bad Guy has seen him go to 0hp and keep fighting repeatedly, with the wizard and clerics who saw him do that surviving the battle to report their findings.
The wizard, having fought the party twice, is due for an upgrade, so he'll be getting Disintegrate. The barbarian has a Cloak of Magic Resistance, and a paladin and artificer nearby, so it'll probably not land.

Divine Word is a good pick for the high-level clerics, but they'll probably wait until there are multiple low-HP targets nearby to use it.

[MaxWilson]

Given the way that the thread has gone...It seems like there really isn't that many non-HP-related ways to kill characters, and the ones I had off the top of my head in the OP is basically all the ones that there are.

That's...Lame.

It is? Why? Like, why does it matter if death saves are involved?

If a CR 3 Neogi Enslaves the 20th level Evoker (DC 14 vs. +7ish to Wis saves = 30% chance of success per Neogi) and makes him Teleport them both to "safety", yeah, that wizard isn't dead yet but prognosis isn't good. He may be restrained and forced to burn all of his spell slots and then Meteor Swarm himself with his final slot, for example. Even if the Meteor Swarm breaks the charm he's got to survive a whole round of Umber Hulk attacks and neogi bites before he can even cast a cantrip.

He'll make death saves but who cares? He's dead once he's forced to Teleport.

What problem are you really trying to solve here? Are you trying to make PCs with lots of HP feel threatened?

[Amnestic]

I have a 15th level Zealot Barbarian in my high-level game, so this has been really helpful. Team Bad Guy has seen him go to 0hp and keep fighting repeatedly, with the wizard and clerics who saw him do that surviving the battle to report their findings.

Cast Sleep on the 0HP barbarian. Assuming they're not an elf, I guess.

[J-H]

The intelligent short sword he's wielding grants a Mind Blank effect as part of its assassination theme... sleep doesn't work on characters immune to the charmed condition.

[Witty Username]

How about Banishment, his rage will end in the demiplane.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Forcecage is an old standby, though that's the first salvo in the nuclear arms race.

[Foolwise]

Everytime I see this thread, I think it is a discussion on when it is proper for monsters to attack unconscious PCs to force death save failures (i.e. not waiting).

[Witty Username]

Zombie plague Spreader from the guide to Ravenloft can kill and turn to Zombies with its Virulent Miasma.

Dullahan from the same book can kill on crits (assuming the character needs its head).

[noob]

Forcecage is an old standby, though that's the first salvo in the nuclear arms race.

The arms race either is won by the gm or it becomes an irl war then becomes a story about "those awful players who blackmailed me and also kidnapped my father for getting leverage for arguments in an rpg"

[False God]

The arms race either is won by the gm or it becomes an irl war then becomes a story about "those awful players who blackmailed me and also kidnapped my father for getting leverage for arguments in an rpg"

A GM can end the arms race by just not participating. The enemies have the tools available to them. They are not specifically tailored to the PCs, they are not there to specifically hit them in their soft spots, the players will take some hits, or be so good they're just walk right over everything.

But the game isn't about just winning fights, and if your players turn any situation that doesn't go their way into a war, the world should respond appropriately. These are not adventurers, these are tyrants. When the shopkeeps start responding with fear, when stores close up as the party approaches, they'll get it. When an army turns and runs they'll hear that it wasn't due to the party's superior firepower, its because the party is regarded about as well as Ramsey Bolton, and they'll get it.

Or you'll discover you're playing with terrible people.

The GM can always "win" the arms race. "No, you can't do that, try again and I stop GMing." Boom, arms race ended. Your players behave or the game ends. The GM has the ultimate, world-destroying Big Red Button always available to them. If the players want to continue the game under a new GM, that's their business.

But the GM "wins" the arms race by not participating, because they don't have to.

[J-H]

How about Banishment, his rage will end in the demiplane.
Persistent Rage: Your rage ends early only if you fall unconscious or if you choose to end it.

Banishment inflicts the Incapacitated condition, which is not the same as the Unconscious condition.

Also he gets to reroll a failed save 1/rage.


Forcecage is an old standby, though that's the first salvo in the nuclear arms race.
I used Forcecage once and dropped it after that. It's un-fun and doesn't exist in my games unless players use it.

[PhantomSoul]

Persistent Rage: Your rage ends early only if you fall unconscious or if you choose to end it.

Banishment inflicts the Incapacitated condition, which is not the same as the Unconscious condition.

Also he gets to reroll a failed save 1/rage.


I used Forcecage once and dropped it after that. It's un-fun and doesn't exist in my games unless players use it.

I think the goal for Banishment was that the one-minute Duration (if Concentration isn't broken) would mean Rage wouldn't be ending early!

[Sigreid]

Did anyone mention a Medusa yet?

[Witty Username]

I forgot about persistent rage. So you would need the full minute for banishment. It will still take them out of the fight and be dangerous to the barbarian and to a save they are less likely to have.

[Pex]

I mean... 5E makes it really hard to kill PCs, so it would make sense that they've intentionally kept instant-kill effects rare.

If you want more, you'll likely have to turn to homebrew, I'm afraid.

Mileage varies whether it's a feature or bug. The game has decided it's a feature. D&D past had Save or Die. It was considered an ok thing. However, as time past players began to find it unfun to lose their character, after a long time of real world time and energy coming to the game sessions and playing the game, to lose their character over a single die roll, especially when at or near full health. They can accept character death as part of the game but not in an instant. Gaming tastes have changed and players want the chance of saving their character. One can lament that happened making the game too easy, but those who prefer Save or Die no longer exists aren't having badwrongfun.

[Witty Username]

Beyond save or die, I think 5e generally lacks consequence. It is difficult for a party to even be inconvenienced by poor decision making or escalating conflict.
Full health is always a few hours away, harmful conditions rarely last more than one encounter, things like encumbrance and resource tracking is very forgiving even at tables that ignore it.
I think this is best embodied by there being several ways to restore lost limbs and as far as I know no way to lose them in the rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Beyond save or die, I think 5e generally lacks consequence. It is difficult for a party to even be inconvenienced by poor decision making or escalating conflict.
Full health is always a few hours away, harmful conditions rarely last more than one encounter, things like encumbrance and resource tracking is very forgiving even at tables that ignore it.
I think this is best embodied by there being several ways to restore lost limbs and as far as I know no way to lose them in the rules.

DMG has rules for losing limbs. And many of those spells are useful for helping NPCs, who lose limbs at the DM's discretion.

And there's much more at stake (or should be) than just character death or maiming. In fact, I'd say that those are rather blunt instruments that are reserved for the worst cases of failure. Because if they're easy, they lose their bite. And players lose their connections to the ongoing narrative in many cases.

[Cheesegear]

And there's much more at stake (or should be) than just character death or maiming.

The problem I've found is that you can't maim a character for long. Same as you can't actually remove a Cleric's Powers, even if it makes sense to do so.

The instant a player's character becomes unplayable for any reason - including character death - one of two things happen:

1. The whole party is punished as they are effectively a member down, losing all reasons for having that character in the group, or
2. They just roll a new character, no consequences. A player has no incentive to play a character that sucks.

[Bundin]

It is? Why? Like, why does it matter if death saves are involved?

What problem are you really trying to solve here? Are you trying to make PCs with lots of HP feel threatened?

This is the main qestion for me as well.

The 'why' often influences the 'how', especially if you need it to fit the narrative so far. For me, narrative consistency trumps RAW-fairness. If the motivation for the lethal action and subsequent death make perfect sense in all of the following: the story, the setting, the party dynamics and their previous interactions in the world, a non-RAW variant on 'you die and there is nothing you can do' would likely be perfectly acceptable. I would have a chat before the session with that player tho. A death can be an excellent spotlight moment, including instant-motivation for the player's next character to get involved.

[JonBeowulf]

Tangent:

I always chuckle when someone posts a thread about killing players. We all know what they mean, but the pedant in me can't help himself.

[Yakk]

Rather than that, I was thinking of manufactured venoms. A lone Goblin has exactly the same CR as a lone Goblin armed with an envenomed blade, so a GM who isn't paying attention, or who is ill-advisedly looking to add some one-use spice to an encounter, can maim or kill a player on a single unlucky save.
Huh? No, that isn't how 5e encounter building CR works.

[KorvinStarmast]

I always chuckle when someone posts a thread about killing players. We all know what they mean, but the pedant in me can't help himself. It's one way to reduce the number of arguments, though. :smallcool:

[Keltest]

The problem I've found is that you can't maim a character for long. Same as you can't actually remove a Cleric's Powers, even if it makes sense to do so.

The instant a player's character becomes unplayable for any reason - including character death - one of two things happen:

1. The whole party is punished as they are effectively a member down, losing all reasons for having that character in the group, or
2. They just roll a new character, no consequences. A player has no incentive to play a character that sucks.

I wont speak for your group, but in my group having a character retire because his leg was chopped off is a Big Deal(tm). At the group level, its a source of drama, because clearly if youre getting dismembered the party has failed somewhere, and at the personal level, its, well, personal. Your leg got chopped off! You were using that, it was important! And you presumably liked that character, or you wouldnt be playing it, so youre losing something you liked. Even if the group in character carries on as if nothing happened, that particular session will stick in memory.

[J-H]

Magical prosthetics are a common or uncommon item RAW, for some reason. I think getting a magic metal battlefist to replace your lost hand should require a quest.

If perma-flight was more viable, losing a leg wouldn't be as bad. One of the SilverClawShift campaign journals had her warlock get petrified. The statue got dropped over a cliff and the legs shattered. She spent the rest of the campaign using Fell Flight, flying around as the legless spooky lady who wore a long dress and always hovered above the ground.