Ever try PC death at 0 hit points?

Sacrosanct · Sep 10, 2018

not-so-newguy said:
How does that break verisimilitude? I would think urgent combat would make things feel a bit more “realistic.”

Because if you know you have at least 3 rounds (barring a 20) before you have to stabilize someone, that ruins verisimilitude for me. It's not anywhere near the sense of urgency it should be when you know you have to react right away. Many times have I see a PC go down, and no one does anything to change their planned actions because they know they have time. That is not realistic at all.

jgsugden · Sep 10, 2018

It tends to result in PC churn until the PCs can raise dea, and then it becomes a law that you must have a cleric to raise the dead (or bard). Personally, I think the evolution from 'death at 0' to the present has been very good for the game.

not-so-newguy · Sep 10, 2018

lowkey13 said:
PC death at 0 is real, and it is spectacular!

... really, though, I've played it, and it is a lot more fun. Completely avoids the whack-a-mole problem. That said, you have to have table buy-in, and that means that the table has to accept that characters can, and will, die.

These questions are really for anyone. I’ll put it in the OP.

What was the character creation process? How long did it take?
How did the DM introduce a new PC?
Did a new PC start at 1st level with 0 experience points?

lowkey13 · Sep 10, 2018

*Deleted by user*

not-so-newguy · Sep 10, 2018

lowkey13 said:
Again, this is fun with the right type of table. But it has to be the right type.

Great info! How about ability scores. Do you use Standard Array or Random Stat rolls?

I’m considering something that I picked up from Matt Colville on Reddit
Stat Generation:
-4d6 drop lowest number
-In order: Strength. Dexterity. Constitution. Intelligence. Wisdom. Charisma.
-At least 2 stats at 15+; or else Roll Over.

When your done rolling:
-Pick Race and Class
-Pick Background
-No Feats

Swarmkeeper · Sep 10, 2018

Sacrosanct said:
Because if you know you have at least 3 rounds (barring a 20) before you have to stabilize someone, that ruins verisimilitude for me. It's not anywhere near the sense of urgency it should be when you know you have to react right away. Many times have I see a PC go down, and no one does anything to change their planned actions because they know they have time. That is not realistic at all.

The difference between reacting within 6 seconds or within 24 seconds (assuming 2 successes and 2 fails) does not necessarily strike me as unrealistic. Especially in situations where a PC needs to fight her way through enemies just to get to the downed PC. That could realistically take a few rounds. But, I get it - that's not exactly what you are talking about. You're talking about the "meta" thinking of the players who believe they can stay the course for a few more rounds before the downed PC is really an issue.

In any case, delaying because a player thinks his character has plenty of time to stabilize his comrade does not come risk-free. There's always a chance of the downed PC rolling a 1, or being hit by a melee attack for two fails (if not outright death for negmax HP), or auto-failing their save against a DEX AoE spell.

All that said, if you feel it's a problem that the players are delaying their stabilizing/healing, you as DM can just make sure an enemy DOES target the downed PC - be that a goblin going for a cowardly death stab or a wolf looking to sample the menu before dragging away a meal to the pups waiting at the den. That should get the discussion amongst the players quickly going in a different direction than "oh, never mind fallen Fred just now, we have at least 3 rounds to stabilize him".

lowkey13 · Sep 10, 2018

*Deleted by user*

Sacrosanct · Sep 10, 2018

DM Dave1 said:
The difference between reacting within 6 seconds or within 24 seconds (assuming 2 successes and 2 fails) does not necessarily strike me as unrealistic. Especially in situations where a PC needs to fight her way through enemies just to get to the downed PC. That could realistically take a few rounds. But, I get it - that's not exactly what you are talking about. You're talking about the "meta" thinking of the players who believe they can stay the course for a few more rounds before the downed PC is really an issue.

In any case, delaying because a player thinks his character has plenty of time to stabilize his comrade does not come risk-free. There's always a chance of the downed PC rolling a 1, or being hit by a melee attack for two fails (if not outright death for negmax HP), or auto-failing their save against a DEX AoE spell.

All that said, if you feel it's a problem that the players are delaying their stabilizing/healing, you as DM can just make sure an enemy DOES target the downed PC - be that a goblin going for a cowardly death stab or a wolf looking to sample the menu before dragging away a meal to the pups waiting at the den. That should get the discussion amongst the players quickly going in a different direction than "oh, never mind fallen Fred just now, we have at least 3 rounds to stabilize him".

Having been in this situation in real life, I can tell you what when someone goes down, there is a clear sense of urgency to address it immediately. The meta idea of "I have a couple rounds before I need to do anything, so I'm gonna do this instead" really doesn't sit well from a verisimilitude perspective. I understand that with my personal experience, my feelings may be biased.

For example, there's a thing called the "golden hour" for badly wounded people. That you have an hour to get them proper medical care (like a hospital, not field medicine) for the best chance of saving them. That doesn't mean people think they have the full hour and thus don't have to rush if they are well within that time frame. From the moment the casualty is wounded, you rush like hell.

Lord Mhoram · Sep 10, 2018

not-so-newguy said:
I would like to hear about your experience with “death at 0 hit points” and your opinions on that experience.

I tried death at 0 HP. The players hated it. I hated it. We stopped doing it.

robus · Sep 10, 2018

Sacrosanct said:
Because if you know you have at least 3 rounds (barring a 20) before you have to stabilize someone, that ruins verisimilitude for me. It's not anywhere near the sense of urgency it should be when you know you have to react right away. Many times have I see a PC go down, and no one does anything to change their planned actions because they know they have time. That is not realistic at all.

Hmm - how about this...

You get knocked to 0 HP, you're grievously wounded.

You begin your death saving throws as usual but unless someone has tended to you, you roll them at disadvantage.

If you've been given a potion of healing you roll death saves normally.

If you've been given a potion of greater healing you roll with advantage.

If you succeed in your death saves and are still alive, you can return to the fight (assuming you get some HP back) - but you'll take a level of exhaustion.

This might add some level of "emergency" to the situation that is lacking in the current rules IMHO.