D&D 5E Followup on "Everyone Starts at First Level"

[KarinsDad]

And, to KarinsDad, if it's not one roll, then it isn't "blind luck", it's poor choices. At some point over the three or four rounds it takes to get those crappy rolls piling up, the character should be doing something to save themselves as they see things going down the tubes. It reminds me of the newspaper articles published every so often about young, unmarried women with children and how hard they have it because of [insert complaint here]. They invariably start with a line like, "When Susan found herself pregnant at 17, she didn't know what to do..." as if her circumstance was totally a freak occurrence out of her control. Ditto that with a character failing death saves. Unless your DM starts each session with all of your characters at 0hp, then there was a whole pile of "your fault" that led up to the death saves. Starting your narrative at the point where the saves are failed is disingenuous at best.

More than any other edition, characters are protected from single bad rolls and one unlucky occurrence. More than that, and it's either a challenge well beyond you (that you chose not to avoid) or your own poor choices that get you killed.

Total nonsense.

You mean poor choices like the NPC hitting the wizard PC, he fails his concentration roll, and the four foes in the Web spell are now out of the Web spell? Sorry, you are just mistaken. Here is an example of two rolls (one good one by an NPC, one poor one by a PC), all in the space of a single turn, which can turn the tide of battle. No player choice involved, let alone poor choices. So obviously, your one die roll theory is in error.


As for the "my fault" of my Wizard's two death saving throws, it happened to be two lightning bolts by the bad guys. My PC actually had 2 hit points remaining after the first lightning bolt, but that could easily have been 2 extra points of damage and a single spell that took him down.

Two characters went unconscious last night with a single Dragon breath weapon. The party ended up beating the dragon and nobody died, but if someone had died (e.g. the dragon had rolled more damage on the breath weapon, or one of those two characters had been a bit more damaged before the breath weapon), does that mean that it would have been due to poor decisions? Obviously not. Nobody is omniscient, even the DM. The best tactics can end up screwing the party and terrible tactics can end up winning the day, just because of dice rolls.

This concept that it has to be due to a single die roll in order for a PC to die from poor dumb luck is total crap. Sorry, you are just flat out mistaken on this.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Total nonsense.

You mean poor choices like the NPC hitting the wizard PC, he fails his concentration roll, and the four foes in the Web spell are now out of the Web spell? Sorry, you are just mistaken. Here is an example of two rolls (one good one by an NPC, one poor one by a PC), all in the space of a single turn, which can turn the tide of battle. No player choice involved, let alone poor choices. So obviously, your one die roll theory is in error.

No player choice involved, really? The wizard didn't choose to stand out in the open where an NPC had clear line-of-sight to him? The party didn't choose to engage the enemies in that location? (Web is best for chokepoints, which implies that there should be cover around.)

Besides, the theory was that no single die rolls results in death. Enemies getting out of a web isn't death, it's just one step along the path.

As for the "my fault" of my Wizard's two death saving throws, it happened to be two lightning bolts by the bad guys. My PC actually had 2 hit points remaining after the first lightning bolt, but that could easily have been 2 extra points of damage and a single spell that took him down.

And there are still player choices involved. No one spent a bonus action on Healing Word to get your wizard back on his feet, or even an action to stabilize him, even after he failed his first death save. They chose to let him bleed out for at least one, possibly two full rounds (depending on where your wizard was in the initiative order). That might have been a good decision but it was still a meaningful choice.

 

[Eirikrautha]

Total nonsense.

You mean poor choices like the NPC hitting the wizard PC, he fails his concentration roll, and the four foes in the Web spell are now out of the Web spell? Sorry, you are just mistaken. Here is an example of two rolls (one good one by an NPC, one poor one by a PC), all in the space of a single turn, which can turn the tide of battle. No player choice involved, let alone poor choices. So obviously, your one die roll theory is in error.


As for the "my fault" of my Wizard's two death saving throws, it happened to be two lightning bolts by the bad guys. My PC actually had 2 hit points remaining after the first lightning bolt, but that could easily have been 2 extra points of damage and a single spell that took him down.

Two characters went unconscious last night with a single Dragon breath weapon. The party ended up beating the dragon and nobody died, but if someone had died (e.g. the dragon had rolled more damage on the breath weapon, or one of those two characters had been a bit more damaged before the breath weapon), does that mean that it would have been due to poor decisions? Obviously not. Nobody is omniscient, even the DM. The best tactics can end up screwing the party and terrible tactics can end up winning the day, just because of dice rolls.

This concept that it has to be due to a single die roll in order for a PC to die from poor dumb luck is total crap. Sorry, you are just flat out mistaken on this.

So my OPINION is wrong, eh? Good to know.

And right back at you. Nothing that you described was a fatality based on bad luck. It was the very possible outcome of a battle against powerful opponents. The risk you take, without playing it safe. The idea that 2 lightning bolts are inevitable, unavoidable events for which your wizard has no recourse or responsibility for eating is laughable. At least, if you play at a table where your DM simply announces that the session begins, two lightning bolts appear, you are dead, then I suggest your table is very different than mine. At mine, we go on an adventure, we make choices, we decide to attack or flee, cover or hide, engage or disengage. But, hey, I guess your way skips right to the meat of the consequences, so it has that going for it...

 

[KarinsDad]

No player choice involved, really? The wizard didn't choose to stand out in the open where an NPC had clear line-of-sight to him? The party didn't choose to engage the enemies in that location? (Web is best for chokepoints, which implies that there should be cover around.)

Besides, the theory was that no single die rolls results in death. Enemies getting out of a web isn't death, it's just one step along the path.

No, the theory started with "One player loses his mid to high level PC either due to dumb blind luck" which was skewed to a theory that "dumb blind luck means a single die roll results in death". I made the first statement, I did not make the second claim (which is erroneous).

And there are still player choices involved. No one spent a bonus action on Healing Word to get your wizard back on his feet, or even an action to stabilize him, even after he failed his first death save. They chose to let him bleed out for at least one, possibly two full rounds (depending on where your wizard was in the initiative order). That might have been a good decision but it was still a meaningful choice.[/COLOR]

Nope. The PCs who could cast Healing Word were unconscious. Those who could use Medicine or cast Cure Wounds were too far away (not all PCs that can heal can cast both spells). In that particular case, my PC chose to cast a damaging spell instead of a Fog Cloud on the BBEG in order to help shorten the fight, but with 2 more points of damage, that choice would have even been taken out of my hands.


Sometimes, it's just plain bad luck. The same exact tactics, initiative order, and PC placement in one encounter can result in great results in one case and a TPK in another and it can all hinge on one or a few good or bad dice rolls. One PC criticals which results in one monster going down with snowballs into more focused fire per foe in future rounds vs. one PC misses which results in one conscious monster knocking one PC unconscious which results in more focused fire per monster vs. PCs in future round which results in a TPK.

Fate can hinge on the head of a pin.

Anyone who thinks that combat revolves entirely on good versus bad tactics has never run into a seriously cold string of player and hot string of DM dice rolls. Hence, I go back to my original claim:

"One player loses his mid to high level PC either due to dumb blind luck, or the bad choices of another player and that player should be penalized with "Go back to square one".

Meh.

I find this POV to be the anti-fun one."


If you find this to be a fun way to play the game, good luck with your game.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

I see some tension rising in here, and people using some emotionally loaded language. I need to ask you to chill out a bit, and remember that the people you are speaking with are more important than your point.

Thanks.

 

[sunrisekid]

And there are still player choices involved. No one spent a bonus action on Healing Word ... or even an action to stabilize.... They chose to let him bleed out for at least one, possibly two full rounds.... That might have been a good decision but it was still a meaningful choice.

This is an important point about player decisions, and I agree with the sentiment.

In my game, I have routinely seen a character drop to 0HP in a "deadly" encounter, but it is very rare to see a character die. This is because my players are quick to stabilize an ally (incidentally, none of my players ever play clerics so this gets interesting).

Typically, the only times I've seen seen characters die is during a TPK - by no means common at my table but this is typically how the characters die. "Cascading failure" might be the expression under such circumstances, when a player has to decide whether to trust the dice and kill the foe, or instead race over to the fallen comrade and try to resuscitate. And, yes, though TPKs tend to elicit disappointment we all agree that the game is more memorable and satisfying in the long run by playing this way. This game is very much a product of the people at the table, who are all steady players over several years.

FWIW, the reason I, as the DM, don't fudge dice rolls is because I like seeing Fortune at the table and enjoy seeing the players get creative and ingenious. (That said, there's always that one player who elects to run instead... but that's another story.) I'm also putting 5E through the paces, seeing how far I can push impartiality - which I prefer but never let get in the way of the bigger picture, i.e., having fun.

 

[sunrisekid]

Also, to the point of ES@1, I agree with the sentiment but only for nostalgia sake. It's satisfying to me, as DM, but not all of my players agree with this. In our current 5E campaign no characters have died yet, so the issue hasn't come up. Also, nobody is higher than 4th level, so I can still insist on 1st level without it being an issue.

I am very interested in whether ES@1 can still be a fun game if other characters are above, e.g., 10th level. If so, then this is something I would like to implement at the table.

 

[Sunseeker]

I am very interested in whether ES@1 can still be a fun game if other characters are above, e.g., 10th level. If so, then this is something I would like to implement at the table.

I have always felt ES@1 is harder on certain styles of play than others, and not necessarily reckless ones either, but simply people who enjoy fighting up close and not at range, who are statistically more likely to take more damage more often. When it comes to ES@1, I would never make someone who intended to play the party tank start at 1, it's just impractical, especially if the party NEEDS that role to be filled. I might encourage them to consider being an evasion tank (high dex and a class with evasive abilities, such as a Monk or swashbuckler-style fighter), but otherwise I'm more inclined to let this person join at or near party level for a variety of what I would think, are fairly obvious reasons.

Ranges classes, and ranged builds on the other hand I have less of a problem with enforcing ES@1, since these classes by their nature can keep themselves out of the forward fray. Healers, support, blasters and scouts generally work find at 1st level, especially in 5th, because very little changes about them up till 8th level (at which point most everyone else has gained substantial class features/feats). Unless you are fighting something spectacularly vicious, a little healing goes a LONG way.

I also think player experience matters. Some folks need that time to learn their character. Some folks don't. I know who those are at my table and I rule accordingly.

Yes, I do make different decisions at the same table for different players. I want my party to be effective and my players to feel useful, anything I can do to encourage that (without simply giving everyone an "I win" button) I will do.

I suppose what it comes down to is not acting on the basis of some sort of feigned "impartiality", you're not impartial as the DM, you can't "blame the system" especially when it comes to house rules! You should do what is in the best interests of the game.

 

[MasterTrancer]

Also, as a different take on the 1st level PC: why is he always portrayed as the sidekick? The literature sports plenty of "green" commanders (the first that springs to my mind is the Gan Orrin, fro The Legend Of The Drenai). He could become attached to the party because they are after all an irregular squad in the army, and he got there a) by raccomandation, because where the PCs are, there is the glory (or maybe because it was supposed to be safe, not knowing that are the troubles that look for the PCs, not the other way around) b) by drawing the short straw stem, earning what seems to be a short trek toward the afterlife c) he has to do at least one field mission before going back to a career behind the desk (which of course he will never see again, starting instead down the adventuring path).

This is just an idea, a different take on the subject, so that an experienced player doesn't necessarily feel totally left behind.

(And I have another example, set in relatively modern era: both the Commanding Officers in the Heartbreak Ridge movie were rookies on the battlefield, though they got there by totally different routes)

As always, YMMV.

 

[howandwhy99]

To OP:

I've been doing the same thing, but in an earlier version of D&D. My suggestion would be to allow the Players to choose where they go (in terms of level of the dungeon), which encounters they confront and which they try and evade, and basically allow them to assess and create their own party abilities for those choices based upon how they learned to work together. I do this by starting a campaign in level one and letting them explore from there. Also, think about giving new players/characters the option to begin later in a session once the playing party retreats back to a level one area or thereabouts.

I rate area/dungeon levels like I rate everything else, so even if a band of Fire Giants marched down from the mountains there would be consequences to be experienced the whole way. Something that signified that changing power level of the area. Maybe that's a high level human encampment (i.e. a city, not Epic-level people) at the mountain's base, or at least that city's patrolled territory. If the PCs are allied with the humans, or even just pretending to be, they will likely be warned the incursion long before they see the first Giant.

That's all about the shifting of dungeon level ratings though based on contents. Something that Dungeon! doesn't do. But maybe it's time for those high level PCs to go raid that Fire Giant Hall for treasure, huh? Or maybe they have some commitment to the people of the invaded land they don't want to lose? (another kind of treasure).