Decapitation and lethality in your game

[Gammadoodler]

I don’t have any monk PCs, but if I did, they would be at a disadvantage when damaged.

Sorry. Wasn't clear there. What I meant was that basically monks' entire kit is centered on the eschewal of armor, and the compensation for this is AC based on 2 stats which are not CON. So they'd have the choice between wearing armor (and being only half a monk), trying to get get their Dex and Wis high enough that they basically never get hit (at the expense of reduced Con, such that near any hit will cause them to take a death save), or pumping Con (at the expense of the stats that drive their AC, meaning they get hit more often with more chances for the incoming damage to force them to take a death save).

With those disadvantages in mind, I'd be pretty surprised if you ever see a monk, and if you do, would be surprised if they live very long.

That consequence may be a feature rather than a bug though. Was just curious if some mitigating measures applied.

 

[Bawylie]

Sorry. Wasn't clear there. What I meant was that basically monks' entire kit is centered on the eschewal of armor, and the compensation for this is AC based on 2 stats which are not CON. So they'd have the choice between wearing armor (and being only half a monk), trying to get get their Dex and Wis high enough that they basically never get hit (at the expense of reduced Con, such that near any hit will cause them to take a death save), or pumping Con (at the expense of the stats that drive their AC, meaning they get hit more often with more chances for the incoming damage to force them to take a death save).

With those disadvantages in mind, I'd be pretty surprised if you ever see a monk, and if you do, would be surprised if they live very long.

That consequence may be a feature rather than a bug though. Was just curious if some mitigating measures applied.

I didn’t really have any mitigating design rules in mind. When I set out to make the game more lethal, I didn’t intend players to stand-n-soak through combats. I fully intended them to carefully pick their battles, how they engage their enemies, etc.

For instance the Valor Bard in the party is constantly saying, “if we do this right, only the fighter gets attacked.” And they try smack and dash to preferred terrain, choke points, or areas where whatever enemy they’re fighting loses their edge.

A very popular tactic is to set ambushes and try like hell to inflict the poisoned condition on the spiciest enemy.

What they rarely, rarely do is stay in place where the encounter begins. And when they must, I’ve seen the fighter take the dodge action, or the bard try to mess with incoming attacks. So they hold, tactically, like a round while they reposition the rogue, etc.

Now, if there WERE a monk operating in this system, I imagine they would also be less of a front liner and much more of a skirmisher. There’s a lot more in the monk kit than AC. The extra movement and stunning strike would be great just to start. A shadow path subclass might bend that monk more toward getting into such a position and debilitating the enemy in a way that subsequent called shots are easier to execute. And an open hand monk can reposition enemies or prevent OAs, and that’s key in a system where attacks can be very lethal.

Anyway, I imagine that the monk player would adapt to the situation along the same lines that the other players have. Which is what you want if you’re playing a “lethal” game.

 

[Bawylie]

[MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION], I suspect at higher levels, perhaps 8+, this would become unmanageable.
Victims of failed fireball-type spells would likely see two saves with your system and particular monster attacks would also rack up the damage. You have to be very careful which monsters you'd use, especially those that have multiple damage types - poison, necrotic...etc

Another thing, picking opponents with smaller damage output assist with the Concentration checks.

Granted this is all white room talk. Playstyles and combat design vary greatly from table to table.

EDIT: Your house rules certainly add another layer of tactics. GWM and SS with their +10 damage would be great in forcing death saves.

Well, I don’t intend on picking monsters carefully. I intend on accurately telegraphing threat and leaving the decision how/if/when to engage to the players.

IMO it isn’t appropriate to go “hey we’re doing lethal rules here” and have the players agree to that, and then put on some big nerf gloves before I start throwing punches.

But we will definitely see in coming weeks how this holds up in mid-level play.

 

[Lanefan]

It's been 25 years or more since I played 1e, but I don't think you can move past an opponent in 1e. I think it's an illegal move. I think once reach melee you must stop your movement and enter it. Thus, any attempt to move past an opponent would fall under the above 'leaving melee' rules.

House rule?

I don't see this in the DMG...though of course it's always possible I missed it. The only thing mentioned that can provoke an attack is disengaging from melee, as already noted above.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But neither of these reference simply going past an opponent; these rules are specific to the break-off-and-flee action when already engaged. It isn't until 3e that simply passing near a foe gives an AoO, which presents a whole new slew of headaches and illogics.

How can you tell whether you are currently engaged in melee combat or not? I would argue that being within reach of an enemy's sword means that you're in melee combat. As such, in trying to move past the fighter, you must first engage them in melee combat and then attempt to disengage from them.

I could also buy that you aren't engaged in melee until you make a melee attack against someone. In that case, wizards would typically be able to flee from an attacker without becoming subject to a rear attack.

Without something more specific in the book, it would be left to DM interpretation. Based on the exact wording, I'm comfortable with saying that this was the precursor to opportunity attacks.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I didn’t really have any mitigating design rules in mind. When I set out to make the game more lethal, I didn’t intend players to stand-n-soak through combats. I fully intended them to carefully pick their battles, how they engage their enemies, etc.

For instance the Valor Bard in the party is constantly saying, “if we do this right, only the fighter gets attacked.” And they try smack and dash to preferred terrain, choke points, or areas where whatever enemy they’re fighting loses their edge.

A very popular tactic is to set ambushes and try like hell to inflict the poisoned condition on the spiciest enemy.

What they rarely, rarely do is stay in place where the encounter begins. And when they must, I’ve seen the fighter take the dodge action, or the bard try to mess with incoming attacks. So they hold, tactically, like a round while they reposition the rogue, etc.

Now, if there WERE a monk operating in this system, I imagine they would also be less of a front liner and much more of a skirmisher. There’s a lot more in the monk kit than AC. The extra movement and stunning strike would be great just to start. A shadow path subclass might bend that monk more toward getting into such a position and debilitating the enemy in a way that subsequent called shots are easier to execute. And an open hand monk can reposition enemies or prevent OAs, and that’s key in a system where attacks can be very lethal.

Anyway, I imagine that the monk player would adapt to the situation along the same lines that the other players have. Which is what you want if you’re playing a “lethal” game.

After taking a second look, in 5e it looks like only, Martial Arts, Unarmored Defense, and Unarmored Movement are specifically gated to require no armor or shield. Martial Arts and Unarmored Movement are pretty iconic pieces of kit to lose, but there is still a fair amount beyond that if the player chooses the protection armor would provide. And I have no doubt the player would adapt to the setting. But to do so, they either have to abandon parts of their kit, or walk a sharper knife's edge than any other character class would have to.

Pretty much all hypothetical though as there haven't been any monk PCs in the campaign that would have to worry about it. And it sounds like it's been a fun balance for the PCs you have, giving martial characters some nice heft to their actions that can be less noticeable otherwise.

 

[Lanefan]

How can you tell whether you are currently engaged in melee combat or not? I would argue that being within reach of an enemy's sword means that you're in melee combat. As such, in trying to move past the fighter, you must first engage them in melee combat and then attempt to disengage from them.

I could also buy that you aren't engaged in melee until you make a melee attack against someone.

Or have been attacked by that person, if you lose initiative and-or did not yet attack.

In that case, wizards would typically be able to flee from an attacker without becoming subject to a rear attack.

Errr...not so sure on this one.

Without something more specific in the book, it would be left to DM interpretation. Based on the exact wording, I'm comfortable with saying that this was the precursor to opportunity attacks.

In a small way, yes; though I suspect there's a more direct precursor somewhere in the late 2e stuff.

 

[Bawylie]

After taking a second look, in 5e it looks like only, Martial Arts, Unarmored Defense, and Unarmored Movement are specifically gated to require no armor or shield. Martial Arts and Unarmored Movement are pretty iconic pieces of kit to lose, but there is still a fair amount beyond that if the player chooses the protection armor would provide. And I have no doubt the player would adapt to the setting. But to do so, they either have to abandon parts of their kit, or walk a sharper knife's edge than any other character class would have to.

Pretty much all hypothetical though as there haven't been any monk PCs in the campaign that would have to worry about it. And it sounds like it's been a fun balance for the PCs you have, giving martial characters some nice heft to their actions that can be less noticeable otherwise.

Honestly it is a bit of a game changer insofar as it really does put fighter types front and center and casters/sneaks back behind the front lines.

I wouldn’t say it would fit every game, but it’s working very well in this one so far.

 

[S'mon]

House rule?

I don't see this in the DMG...though of course it's always possible I missed it. The only thing mentioned that can provoke an attack is disengaging from melee, as already noted above.

In 1e you are 'in melee' if within 10' of enemy. The rules are far from clear and need to be read carefully.