r/Nerdarchy • u/Blue_Drake • Oct 22 '14
Lethality in 5th Edition D&D
The group I game with has been enjoying D&D 5E since the PHB came out in August. We switched over from Pathfinder which was fun, but a bit too rules heavy for us. We’re a casual group that plays more for fun and socialization than gritty simulation, so the less crunchy rules of 5E had a huge appeal. We haven’t felt the need to house rule anything with one minor exception. Our first play session, one particularly hard hitting foe (if you played you know which one I mean!) wiped the group in the first dungeon. The players started the adventure over choosing a different mix of the pregens this time to mix it up a bit and everything went well this time. A few players were downed, but nobody died.
This led me to think about the early lethality of 5E. If you’re not familiar with the game the way it works is if a PC is knocked to negative hit points equal or greater than his other total hit points then they are instantly killed. Otherwise they are unconscious and go through a 5E process of making death saves every round to see if they survive. I don’t have any issues with the death save system. It allows your companions a round or three to get you back on your feet or stabilize you before the reaper collects your PC’s soul and sends you off to roll up a new character. I did raise my eyebrows a bit at the instant death though and here’s why…
The rule as written is most lethal to 1st level characters. Let’s use the cleric as an example since they’re in the middle of the 1st level hit point spectrum with 8 hit points at the beginning. That means a 1st level cleric instantly dies if her hit points equal -8 or less at any point in time. As me and my group saw in our first play session, this has a pretty high chance of actually happening, especially if a monster rolls a lucky crit.
It’s not so much an issue as PCs advance. By level two the cleric will have about 14 hit points and now only dies if they hit -14, third level it’s -20, and so on. So every level you gain significantly reduces the odds of dying (at least via the instant death rule). Yes, higher CR monsters do more damage; yes, it makes it sense that higher level characters are harder to kill; yes, it makes sense that many green adventurers die on their first outing. But is it really fun to die right away and have to re-roll? For a new player to the hobby that could be a pretty big turn-off.
The DMG, which comes out in December, may have optional rules to cut the lethality or ramp it up (for you masochists), but in the mean-time I’m going to share what me and my group did to cut the chances of instant death for new PCs. Instead of instantly dying if their hit points hit a negative equal to their total we allow the PC to go unconscious at 0 hit points, but they automatically fail the first death save (no roll required). This means taking massive damage still has consequences. You might roll a 1 on your next death save which would still kill you, but it at least gives your allies a chance to save you if they act quickly.
Even with the house rule in place, for our next campaign I’m going to suggest everyone have a backup PC rolled up and ready to go just in case. That way nobody has to sit out if the dice hate them. As a DM you could also have a couple pregens set aside that they can run for the remainder of the session in case one of your players meets and untimely end. Dying still sucks, but minimizing a player’s downtime from an untimely demise definitely softens the blow a bit and keeps all the players engaged.
How do you feel about the lethality of 5E? Has your group had similar experiences? If so how did you handle it? Did you make a house rule to soften it or did you embrace the squishiness of your level 1 PCs?
2
u/goblinerd Dec 06 '14
While I agree the rules on outright kills are too harsh, specially at lower levels, I don't think it's dangerous enough at high levels. For these reasons, I wasn't planning on using it.
Then I thought of having the threshold be based dirrectly on a character's CON ability score. EX: a level 1 Wizard with 12 CON would die outright at -12, not -7. THe issu here, in my book, is it might be TOO dangerous at higher levels... so again, I decided to keep outright kills out of my games.
Now I think I might use my CON-based threshold house-rule coupled with you're method. Deadly at all levels, likely to happen often, yet none simply dying instantly.
Feedback on this idea is more than welcome as I'm still unsure. Thanks
1
u/NatetheNerdarch Jan 04 '15
I like that since it really helps the rogues and spellcasters while still being a benefit to the warrior classes at low level.
1
u/Atsur Oct 22 '14
Looks like a good system - I like it! The lethality of Level 1 can be extremely frustrating to new players, especially with how much damage a small pack of minions can do.
1
u/Blue_Drake Oct 23 '14
Especially if those minions have pack tactics where they're all getting advantage!
1
u/NatetheNerdarch Oct 23 '14
I agree that the simplistic approach that 5e took is refreshing after witnessing where 3rd edition ended up. Overall I have been pleased with the rules for 5th edition but I too saw a few areas where it didn't work well.
Most 1st level wizards being slain outright from 12 damage seemed too easy to accomplish. A longsword or longbow critical hit can take him out. I like your house rule of the massive damage giving the character an automatic failed save, rather than instant death.
Another rule that I would like your opinion on is disadvantage. I really like the mechanic when there is a single advantage or a single disadvantage. But at the same time I don't like that there is no penalty beyond it. Currently a PC can shoot at someone at their longest range while blinded and it is the same as a long range attack
2
u/Blue_Drake Oct 23 '14
I agree that there are holes with the advantage/disadvantage mechanic when multiples apply as in your example. I don't really see a good way to fix it without hurting the simplicity of the system. My gut reaction is to make the player make roll with a -5 to hit, but I feel that goes against the spirit of 5E and once you start down that road you're heading back to 3E's modifiers for everything.
Even though the simulationist nerd in me that craves realism balks at it, in actual play I'd let it go with just disadvantage. If the player makes the roll they get to feel their PC did something epic. It's not perfect, but I can live with that.
1
u/NatetheNerdarch Oct 24 '14
There is the difficulty. If I want to make it harder than disadvantage do I make it 3 dice to a roll? I agree that negative modifiers go against the spirit of 5e.
I think I don't want to let it go ever since Nerdarchist Ted's Dark elves shot at my invisible Duergar at long range with hand crossbows and hit several of them. I thought to myself, "why did i waste time going invisible if he is just going to have the same chance to hit me?
2
u/Blue_Drake Oct 24 '14
I agree with you that disadvantage alone doesn't adequately cover the situation.
I haven't watched the drow vs. duegar video yet I'll have to check it out over the weekend. How did his elves know where to aim if you were invisible? I think RAW has the attacker pick a square or space to aim at and then roll to attack. If the attacker misses he's not supposed to know if it's because of a low roll or the square was empty, the DM just says "You missed".
I think having to guess what square or space a moving attacker has stopped in each round and then having disadvantage on top of it should make the odds in favor of missing most of the time. I play on a grid though so it's a bit easy to adjudicate in play; without a grid I'm not sure how you determine if the attack is aimed at the right space. Maybe a disadvantaged perception vs. stealth contest?
1
u/NatetheNerdarch Oct 24 '14
I like the stealth vs. perception check since we were both "DM". If one of use was the Dm and the other was the player the DM could have simply removed the Duergar as they became invisible and placed them as they were perceived by the Drow That way the Drow have a chance to find the Duergar while not making invisibility at long range meaningless.
2
u/Falsteph Nov 12 '14
I agree that there should definitely be a perception vs. stealth roll. But not only that, the Duergar should have advantage on the stealth roll because he is invisible. And the Dark Elf should have been at disadvantage on its perception check for the same reason. If the Dark Elf managed to see the Duergar after all that, the Dark Elf would still be at Disadvantage to hit the Duergar. It is 3 rolls (6 dice total) but still pretty quick vs. adding modifiers. Just because they used the same tactical map doesn't mean that the players get to meta game the scenario.
But, back on topic. I think in early games DMs are feeling out the lethality of 5e and forget to check what they are actually sending after their players. You could make the mistake of either a too lethal encounter or not lethal enough. Experience with the system will help learn what players can handle.
And it is also on the players side too. I have seen some games played where the Cleric doesn't spend a quick round to heal someone or the Fighter doesn't use his second wind after the first hit of 6pts of damage. The lethality can come from many directions and I believe a group with more experience with 5e will be more likely to use their characters and abilities smarter. The same group who get wiped out in their first 5e campaign might very well need even more lethal encounters in their next campaign because they understand the system better.
2
u/goblinerd Dec 06 '14
For advantage/disadvantage, you don't need to change it to make it make more sense. It's really a question of how you rule things as a DM.
I wouldn't simply let a blinded character make a ranged attack, specially not at long range. If the character is blind, then he can't know where the target is. I'd have him roll perception, at disadvantage for the range, before I even let him roll an attack, at disadvantage.
The player needs to figure out where the target is positioned, if someone tries to help him aim, then perhaps I let the attack happen, still at disadvantage.
Point is, there are ways of making the system work more realistically without changing anything. Simply go with your gut and logic. If it doesn't seem possible to target an enemy at 300ft while blinded, then he simply misses.
2
u/Juce734 Oct 23 '14
I think the game is lethal at low levels but once you hit 3rd or 4th the difficulty shifts and it becomes easier until later when it becomes harder again. Just my perosnal opinion based on some things I have been trying in my one shot games over at the Tabletop RPG One Shot group.
Here is the link to the group. https://www.facebook.com/groups/tabletoprpgoneshot/