D&D 5E Is Dying really hard?

[Psikerlord#]

My problem with the death saves thing is if you, as DM, want to make the fight lethal, you have to deliberately gank a PC. And that's just not going to make anyone at the table happy. Sure, it's realistic and believable that that critter takes the time to dump a couple of attacks into a downed PC, but, it feels very antagonistic as the DM. If I killed a PC because of a failed save or a good die roll, I felt that I was a bit removed from the PC death.

In 5e though, it's going to be pretty obvious when the DM is trying to kill a PC. I think it's one of those things that the table should discuss - make it clear from the outset that baddies will usually/always try to eat a downed PC before play even starts. Particularly if you want to be consistent about it. Either do it all the time, or none of the time. Otherwise, it's going to lead to hard feelings.

It's not even realistic though to attack a downed PC. Not when there are viable threats up on their feet. Even healers on their feet. You would simply try and disable the healer first.

 

[Mercule]

Yeah, because it is also meta when the monsters reach zero hit points and are DEAD dead, and the PCs know 100% they aren't getting up again because they aren't making death saves. No PC ever stabs a downed monster an extra time just to make sure.

Depends. Most of the time, it's not relevant because the monsters don't have a healer. So, there's no substantive difference between them being dead and them rolling death saves. We ignore the monster death saves mainly because we don't want to deal with the moral implications of what to do with 4 orcs at 1 hit point and prone, not because those orcs are particularly challenging.

Nonetheless, if the combat goes on very long and the monsters have a healer, I really have no problem with the NPCs bouncing, either. But, I'm not going to do it if more than a couple rounds have passed because I don't want to actually track the death saves. Ditto, if the PCs decide they want to save the goblin for questioning (though one might argue they should have thought of that before running him through).

So, in practice, I just assume that NPCs really suck at death saves and fail them 3/4 of the time (i.e. they're dead in roughly four rounds).

 

[Nebulous]

We ignore the monster death saves mainly because we don't want to deal with the moral implications of what to do with 4 orcs at 1 hit point and prone, not because those orcs are particularly challenging.

Haha, not my players, they care not a whit for the suffering of anything opposed to their advanced in levels or magic. We don't do death saves because the rules never assume they do, and it's easier to not track that stuff mechanically, as the monsters usually die. The PCs are ultimately meant to live and the game gives them lots and lots and loopholes to escape death, including easily attained Raise Dead.

 

[Nebulous]

It's not even realistic though to attack a downed PC. Not when there are viable threats up on their feet. Even healers on their feet. You would simply try and disable the healer first.

And it's not a realistic game we are playing by any means. People don't drop to dying status multiple times in a day, take an 8 hour nap and then continue on their merry way.

As far as disabling the healer first, even then the enemy would have to know WHO had healing ability, which by higher level can be multiple people. And on top of that, my players have this thing where they rip a healing potion off the belt of a downed PC and feed it to them, so in that case no one needs to be a healer at all, she just needs an action to give someone a potion.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[devincutler]

Yeah, I think you totally missed the point there in comparing real-life predators to zombies in order to say that DMs are wantonly killing PCs in a thread about the unlikelihood of, you know, ever dying in 5e.

Also, not-intelligent critters doesn't mean a wildlife documentary of a lion killing an antelope;it means zombies, oozes, gelatinous cubes, etc.

Props for wanton, however. One of my favorite words, especially as an adverb!

I didn't miss your point at all, but apparently, you missed mine. I was only excluding zombies because, with no real life analogues, there is no way anyone can actually comment authoritatively on their feeding habits. Since all we have to go on are real life examples, I gave them. It is not a stretch to assume monstrous predators would exhibit the same logical and, ultimately, survivable behaviours.

In any event, in 5e zombies are not mindless. They have an Int of 3, which is comparable to a dog or lion. And oozes have an Int of 1 or 2. 1 is comparable to insects, sharks, and crabs. 2 is pretty much average animal intelligence. So it is logical to assume these creatures are capable, as a survival mechanism in order to survive their first meal, of deferring gratification and fending off threats.

As far as applicability to a thread about dying in 5e. A theme of this thread has been that dying can be prevalent in 5e if the DM has creatures attack downed PCs. My point is that the idea that "mindless" predators will attack downed foes if other foes are around is erroneous. Intelligent creatures are also unlikely to attack downed foes for a variety of other reasons.

So, IMO, in most cases if a DM is attacking downed PCs, he is trying to be deadlier than he should be.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

I didn't miss your point at all, but apparently, you missed mine. I was only excluding zombies because, with no real life analogues, there is no way anyone can actually comment authoritatively on their feeding habits.

Zombies exist in folklore and fiction. The feeding habits of the latter have been quite extensively illustrated (and D&D ghouls probably model some of those habits better than D&D zombies, which are maybe a bit more like the folklore version).

 

[devincutler]

Zombies exist in folklore and fiction. The feeding habits of the latter have been quite extensively illustrated (and D&D ghouls probably model some of those habits better than D&D zombies, which are maybe a bit more like the folklore version).

That's fine, but those zombies do not have intelligence scores or exhibit intelligence equal to higher order mammals. You can run your world any way you like, but the text in the MM and the stats do not argue for that interpretation.

 

[devincutler]

You certainly make an interesting appeal to common sense. See generally-

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...se-isn-t-so-common-and-the-need-for-tolerance

(FWIW, it's not usually a great idea, IMO, to assume that people throwing out ideas are doing so with malicious intentions. In addition, your baseline idea for what is best for a table - either one you play at, or one you run - is not the same baseline assumption that other tables would have. As has been repeatedly discussed in these threads, some tables prefer heroic fantasy (with more of a simulated threat) and other tables prefer grittier or even meatgrindy campaigns. There is no better, just preferences.)

Where did I assume you have malicious intentions? I made a comment on predators. That's all. Subtext much?

As far as "better" vs "preferences", de facto.