D&D 5E Not dying?

[Bradley Hindman]

I prefer to adjudicate morale as the DM. Players would not appreciate me saying when they lose morale, why should an abstract rule set do so for NPCs?

Usually, there is a point in any combat where it becomes apparent (to me at least) that even if the enemy wins, the victory will be pyrrhic. At that point, I will either just have the enemy run for it or if I am uncertain if the enemy would realize the state they are in, I have the enemy make an Intelligence saving throw usually with a DC 10. Quick, simple, and imminently flexible.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm afraid I have to agree with ExploderWizard. When you don't have morale rules, or if they are a tiny sidebar somewhere, what you have is D&D turned into a tactical boardgame where everyone stays until dead. I've seen it over and over and over again. We've even seen that style of gaming here, where combat is viewed as pools of HP (a term someone used just a couple days ago) and other resources, and who runs out first loses. A lot of people don't view PCs as personalities in combat, let alone NPCS or monsters. Especially NPCs and monsters.

So if you actually had morale rules, that tells DMs that monsters aren't just mindless stat blocks to be taken down to 0, and that running away is a real thing.

*Edit* But like he said, they aren't a replacement for DM rulings. But there to advise players of the above, otherwise we end up with a game like I described.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Usually, there is a point in any combat where it becomes apparent (to me at least) that even if the enemy wins, the victory will be pyrrhic. At that point, I will either just have the enemy run for it or if I am uncertain if the enemy would realize the state they are in, I have the enemy make an Intelligence saving throw usually with a DC 10. Quick, simple, and imminently flexible.

Definitely. Many foes should just take a loss or two before they decide discretion is the better part of valor.

 

[Cyrinishad]

Regarding NPC/Monster Morale... The rule I generally go by is that no one wants to die, even NPCs & Monsters. So, as the saying goes... "Run away, and live to fight another day."
I'm fortunate that my players trust my judgment in this regard, so I don't consult any tables, I just make an RP-ing decision for NPCs or Monsters... Therefore, my players appropriately dread encountering Constructs, Undead, and Summoned Monsters.

Of course, the "Run Away" option leads to great story scenarios with recurring villains... Example: My PCs had a time travel type of scenario and encountered a Young Dracolisk, which opted to run away after it severely injured. Now that the PCs have interfered in the "Past", I'm looking forward to when they go "Back to the Future" with the prospect of them encountering an Ancient Dracolisk with an unforgiving memory.

 

[Gradine]

Quite simply because many gamers these days, especially ones new to the game have difficulty in the absence of an outlined procedure.

Morale rolls are are always subordinate to the DMs notes. If there are fanatics who always fight to the death and are noted as such then no roll would be made of course. The dice and morale procedure are an aid to DM prep, not a replacement for it.

I can appreciate this viewpoint, and can somewhat see the appeal of a baked in Morale system that can be ignored if the DM so chooses.

The thing is, I have also encountered viewpoints here that would declare such actions by a DM to be tantamount to cheating. The statblock says "X" about Morale, you have to follow it. And if PCs had any kind of ability to directly influence Morale, such as through Intimidate or Menacing Strike? Forget about it. Ignore the rule and gimp your players.

I don't at all agree with that viewpoint, mind you. But it exists and it makes hard-coding in such a system fraught with all sorts of problems. I think we'd be much better off giving DMs better guidance on how to adjudicate and roleplay those situations, frankly.

You could add in an optional system, but then it would be optional, which is exactly the kind of thing the kind of DM you describe would be likely to avoid in the first place.

 

[uzirath]

Without the risk of death, combat isn't very interesting or exciting. You can simply say that a fight happened and the party won (again). There cannot be any real victory if there is no actual chance of defeat.

This doesn't entirely match my experience. The players (and characters) are careful to avoid needlessly risky situations so that they don't end up in a situation where death becomes likely. (As mentioned in the original post, if death is the only reasonable outcome of an action, PCs do die.) I'd also suggest that "defeat" can mean more than death. The party is often (regularly) defeated, but it doesn't typically lead to PC death.

 

[ccs]

Out of curiosity, how do you handle spells like "Power Word Kill"? Are enemy casters prohibited from having the spell? Or do they always "happen" to target the person that you know has 100hp or more?

Whatever the PCs can do, the NPCs can do. So yes, at some point if you make it your job to go picking fights with beholders/arch-mages/greater demons & devils/liches etc you'll run into foes capable of casting such things & smart enough to use them well.

 

[uzirath]

I do think all players need to be mature enough to know that character death can happen. If you’re not capable of handling it like an adult, then maybe this isn't the best choice of hobby for you. I’m not going to go out of my way to kill characters, and I generally am cheering for them to be victorious. But poor choices and overconfidence should have consequences, not to mention when the dice just go awry.

In my experience (as someone who started gaming in the '70s), it's been my younger, less mature players who need character death on the table.

I firmly agree that "poor choices and overconfidence should have consequences." And we do let the dice change the course of things. But unless there is a combination of poor choices and bad die rolls, characters don't die just from a die roll in most of my games.

 

[Bradley Hindman]

Of course, the "Run Away" option leads to great story scenarios with recurring villains...

There is no villain players hate more than the one that got away. I once had a recurring foe whose modus operandi was to run like hell once the PCs showed up. After the third time he managed to "flee vengeance", the players so thoroughly hated him that they all conveniently forgot that he had never actually attacked them. Didn't matter. He remained at the top of their hit list for years (the campaign ran for nigh on a decade).

 

[ExploderWizard]

This doesn't entirely match my experienc. The players (and characters) are careful to avoid needlessly risky situations so that they don't end up in a situation where death becomes likely. (As mentioned in the original post, if death is the only reasonable outcome of an action, PCs do die.) I'd also suggest that "defeat" can mean more than death. The party is often (regularly) defeated, but it doesn't typically lead to PC death.

Regular defeat without death sounds like you have players who are wise enough to retreat to avoid such a fate. If only such players were more common.