D&D 5E Hard Mode Campaigning

[Mishihari Lord]

Dropping to 0 hp results in a wound. Broken arms, lost eyes, severed hands or feet. But let people get mediocre magical prostheses. Hooks, stumps, maybe articulated but clunky hands.

Yes! And use the old Rolemaster critical hit table. Five minutes into my very first game of Rolemaster, a PC took a critical hit from portcullis dropping on him, and got the (I think) top result on the table: "Impaled through the eye, instantly dead." Most results are far less deadly, but you'll definitely get what RangerWickett recommended.

 

[Astrosicebear]

You're assuming his players exploit, and he (as a DM) allows it.

If the 15mwd is an issue in a game, it's an issue because the gaming group is made up of players who exploit, and a DM who allows it. If that's the preferred play style of that group and they have fun with it, so be it. The game is about having fun. But it's not the game breaking issue that the players posting to 50+ page threads on the various RPG forums have made it to be. The 15mwd was never an argument that held any water. The rules have always been clear that you rest/pray/prepare to regain spells once in a 24 hour period. It's been there since AD&D. If this is ignored at the table, the fault of any imbalance or breakage lies with those at the table.

I think you misunderstand the 15mwd dilemma. It is not about granting multiple long rests within a 24hr period, thus allowing multiple spell recoveries in that time. I don't know where you picked that up. Also its not an exploit. No where does the game rules state "you need to adventure for more than 15 minutes a day". So its not about imbalance, breakage at the table, or exploitation.

If the dungeon is extremely dangerous the party can certainly go in, clear a room expending all resources and then go out and rest for a day, and come back tomorrow. It could take them weeks to clear a dungeon, but they'd be safe. Especially in a game that house rules death to be much, much more severe.

As a player I put alot time into a character, back story, goals, ambitions... if playing in a game where the DM says you are basically going to die, alot, that creates degenerate characters. Why then would a DM punish good characters for wanting to be cautious? Sounds like typical DM vs players mentality and the DM should play hackmaster.

 

[Pentegarn]

If the dungeon is extremely dangerous the party can certainly go in, clear a room expending all resources and then go out and rest for a day, and come back tomorrow. It could take them weeks to clear a dungeon, but they'd be safe. Especially in a game that house rules death to be much, much more severe.

As a player I put alot time into a character, back story, goals, ambitions... if playing in a game where the DM says you are basically going to die, alot, that creates degenerate characters. Why then would a DM punish good characters for wanting to be cautious? Sounds like typical DM vs players mentality and the DM should play hackmaster.

This doesn't change anything. The fault lies at the table. It's one thing for the players to experience a string of bad luck, or barely survive a bloody battle, and decide to retreat to a "safe" place for a rest. It happens from time to time. But there's a difference in doing that, and just abusing the opportunity.

If the members of the gaming group are aware of what is referred to as the "15mwd", then they are aware of when it's being abused. You can call it whatever you wish. I call it an exploit. Whether it's exploiting the rules or lack thereof. But like I said in my earlier post, if that's the way you enjoy playing, so be it. As long as you and your group have fun.

Thankfully, my players enjoy a challenge, play within the spirit of the rules, and would rather not play at all if there weren't any risks of dying. Adventure is about risk. Without it, what's the point? The DM might as well sit each player down, in turn, and tell him/her how he/she has won the game of D&D while they look on with doe eyes, bouncing up and down on the edge of their seat, clapping their hands and yelling, "YAAAY!" Too many these days want easy mode in all things. They neither like, nor want a challenge. But whatever. If that's the way a particular group likes it at their table, more power to them. But those types would be in for a harsh "reality" check at my table, and wouldn't last long. If they did stay, they'd learn to use tactics and stealth, manage resources, and make use of the option to parlay whenever it was relatively reasonable or possible. In other words, they'd learn to be cautious, not just abuse the system and call that being cautious.

Again, thankfully my players don't exploit, but if they did, if I felt they were abusing the "15mwd", then I'd just use similar reasoning (like "being cautious" for example). The living world would simply repopulate the areas they've cleared, call reinforcements, be on alert, and/or the enemies would send patrols out after the players. I could even take away their retreat, have the enemy collapse the cave entrance or some such, and the only way out would be to move forward. It's not a DM vs players mentality, it's just a DM trying to be a good DM by not allowing abuses or exploitation at the table. My players haven't complained. Some of them have complained, however, about the occasional game under certain DMs and players at the local hobby store, in games where they felt like they couldn't die, that they were being coddled, or the rules abused. That may sound elitist, but I'm so thankful, and glad for the opportunity to play with players who, like me, enjoy playing in the spirit of the rules and adventure, in a gritty game that actually challenges them.

"It's the sour and the sweet. And I know sour, which allows me to appreciate the sweet." - Brian Shelby, "Vanilla Sky"

As to DM vs player mentality, or is it player vs DM mentality? I've played in a game or two where I felt the DM was showing favoritism to certain players, but never one where I felt the DM was trying to kill my character. On the other hand, I've gotten the impression many times, especially reading forums, where a player seemed to feel he was entitled. In some cases, just because he did something every player is encouraged to do (and from my experience, does), like put some thought into his character. It could be the DM showing favoritism, having it out for a player or the group; or it could be the player whose character dies due to unlucky die rolls or series of bad decisions and then blames the DM. Whatever the reason for a DM vs player vs DM mentality, these people shouldn't be playing together. There's either a real issue with the DM or player, in which case they probably shouldn't be playing with anyone til they grow up a little, or the group members are simply incompatible. Thankfully, other than the incident I mentioned where a DM seemed to show favortism for certain players, I've never had any issues, and in those cases, my friends and I simply didn't return for further gaming sessions.

Ultimately, it's up to the DM whether he allows the sort of abuse that leads to the "15mwd", no matter how one tries to rationalize it as otherwise. If the "15mwd" is something that is considered an issue (meaning it's not something wanted or enjoyed) at the table, then the DM and the players at that table possess the tools to avoid the abuses enough that it wouldn't be considered an issue.

 

[Astrosicebear]

I agree 100% with everything you said, just not the terminology of 'exploit'.

It is in all how a group likes to play. Personally, I dont like being a player in a game where the DM stacks death against you unfairly (wounds/low regen/etc). It alters the core balance of the system. I prefer a more high-energy heroic style. But to each their own.

It does come down to DM mentality and player mentality. If the shared gaming experience is agreed upon, then whatever the group finds fun is whats best for that table. But all too often at higher levels especially, the game (older editions) degenerate into 1 encounter and a rest. Granted that encounter usually takes all night, so hopefully 5e resolves that dilemma, and the 15mwd goes away with it. And you are correct that any sane DM would repopulate areas for overly cautious players,

 

[Pentegarn]

I agree 100% with everything you said, just not the terminology of 'exploit'.

It is in all how a group likes to play. Personally, I dont like being a player in a game where the DM stacks death against you unfairly (wounds/low regen/etc). It alters the core balance of the system. I prefer a more high-energy heroic style. But to each their own.

It does come down to DM mentality and player mentality. If the shared gaming experience is agreed upon, then whatever the group finds fun is whats best for that table. But all too often at higher levels especially, the game (older editions) degenerate into 1 encounter and a rest. Granted that encounter usually takes all night, so hopefully 5e resolves that dilemma, and the 15mwd goes away with it. And you are correct that any sane DM would repopulate areas for overly cautious players,

Well, my experience with 5e D&D beyond the forums comes from participation in the Next playtest, and from a brief flip through the pages of the 5e PHB at my local hobby store roughly five days after the release to select stores. Due to the, as you put it, "encouter usually takes all night," issue of 3x and 4e, my groups briefly returned to 2e. Then we experimented with OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Swords and Wizardry, 13th Age, Castles and Crusades, and other systems. Our default now it Dungeon Crawl Classics (albeit a house-ruled version), with occasional breaks for a Numenera or Dungeon World game.

So I really don't know about how badly getting rid of the HD style of natural healing would impact core balance in 5e. It seemed in the playtest to make the game way too easy for my tastes. So I understand the OP's desire to get rid of it. For me, it wasn't just about the feel that the rules coddled the player characters, it was also about how those rules made the concept and interpretation of hit points feel, and how it implied that wounds be described.

If getting rid of the HD natural healing rules did upset the core balance to a point that was undesirable, the OP could house rule in a damage mitigation rule for armor. Simply give armor a damage mitigation to slashing, bludgeoning, and piercing damage equal 1 point for each armor category. Light = 1, Medium = 2, and Heavy = 3. Or base the mitigation on the AC of the armor, and give it a rate of 1 point of mitigation per 2 points of AC provided by the armor, rounding down. I've house ruled in an armor based damage mitigation rule in every version of D&D since 2eAD&D, along with an EAC (Effective Armor Class) or Defense Bonus based on class and level. In the case of both rules, we just use witchever AC bonus is higher when armor is worn. Adding an EAC or Defense Bonus rule allows players who aren't wearing armor, whether they do not have it on at the time or simply prefer not to wear it, still fight effectively. After all, many of the heroes you see in movies or read about in books don't wear heavy armor or magic items, yet they skillfully avoid being hit.

Since there was an option in the 3e's Unearthed Arcana, it's probable they may include an optional system in 5e's DMG since Mearls made a comment that it would be part Unearthed Arcana.