D&D 5E Death, dying and class balance

[Libramarian]

A few posters recently have expressed dissatisfaction with how soft the rules for death and dying are in 5e. I share this sentiment and would like to make 0HP a scarier prospect with a houserule or two, but I'm concerned with how this would impact class balance.

There seems to have been a considerable effort made to balance the damage output of the classes across a full adventuring day, but far less to balance them defensively.

I'm thinking in particular of the Bear Barbarian and Moon Druid. Also the Abjurer, to a lesser extent. It seems to me that they're balanced under the default assumption of plentiful and very "liquid" healing, so that PCs live and die with the party and relative sturdiness is not very important for class balance. I.e. in vanilla 5e, one PC's 70 temp HP is close to being the party's temp HP, for all intents and purposes, as healing resources are pooled together. If PCs were more likely to die at 0 HP, would these classes (and possibly other defense-oriented builds) become overpowered?

I don't have these classes IMC (PCs are Warlock, Ranger, Cleric, Fighter) but I don't want them to be obviously superior choices for the next PC.

For the purpose of illustration let's consider an extreme case: dead at 0 HP, and the Revivify spell is removed from the game. Is a Barbarian overpowered in this game (compared to say a Fighter)? Is a Druid overpowered compared to a Cleric?

TL;DR: If I make it easier to kill characters, do hard-to-kill builds become OP?

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

You'll get a lot of half orcs with death at 0.

One way to make it scarier would be to simply make Death Saves be best of 3, rather than first to 3.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I guess you get no half orcs because their relentless feature only kicks in when he does not die right away. So in every single case they are dead.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

A few posters recently have expressed dissatisfaction with how soft the rules for death and dying are in 5e. I share this sentiment and would like to make 0HP a scarier prospect with a houserule or two, but I'm concerned with how this would impact class balance.

There seems to have been a considerable effort made to balance the damage output of the classes across a full adventuring day, but far less to balance them defensively.

I'm thinking in particular of the Bear Barbarian and Moon Druid. Also the Abjurer, to a lesser extent. It seems to me that they're balanced under the default assumption of plentiful and very "liquid" healing, so that PCs live and die with the party and relative sturdiness is not very important for class balance. I.e. in vanilla 5e, one PC's 70 temp HP is close to being the party's temp HP, for all intents and purposes, as healing resources are pooled together. If PCs were more likely to die at 0 HP, would these classes (and possibly other defense-oriented builds) become overpowered?

I don't have these classes IMC (PCs are Warlock, Ranger, Cleric, Fighter) but I don't want them to be obviously superior choices for the next PC.

For the purpose of illustration let's consider an extreme case: dead at 0 HP, and the Revivify spell is removed from the game. Is a Barbarian overpowered in this game (compared to say a Fighter)? Is a Druid overpowered compared to a Cleric?

TL;DR: If I make it easier to kill characters, do hard-to-kill builds become OP?

Tangent: in vanilla 5E, temp HP scale in value with the defensive characteristics of the PC. In a fight with CR 1-5 creatures, 15 temp HP on an AC 21 Fighter/Wizard with Blur up are way more valuable than 15 temp HP on a Recklessly Attacking AC 16 GWM Barbarian. So yes, in a sense the temp HP are the party's HP, but it matters which PC you put them on.

In your example case, the Barbarian is underpowered compared to the Sharpshooter fighter because he's way more likely to get injured and therefore killed. Wizards, Chain Pact warlocks, and Shadow Monks become somewhat more popular because they have non-HP-based ways to mitigate risk. Expect to see more Lucky feats and more characters grabbing Shield spells. I'm not sure about cleric vs. druid* but yes, probably clerics become simultaneously more desirable to have in the party and less desirable to be in combat--you may see clerics acting more like a combat medic. Also, "dead at 0 HP" makes features like Preserve Life much harder to leverage successfully--in such a game, I'd suggest allowing Preserve Life to work on any PC below 75% of full HP, instead of normal 50%.

Is it your goal to alter the game rules without altering the rational strategy for playing the game? That seems pretty futile. Even something as simple as the way the DM treats Stealth already has a huge impact on the relative desirability of various classes (Rogue, Warlock). Messing with the campaign difficulty factor, either via rules or (perceived) adventure design, will also alter player strategy. For example, against a DM who favors challenging players with one or two high-CR monsters, high-AC fighters are relatively less valuable compared to Raging, Reckless Attack Barbarians. Against hobgoblins behind field fortifications, the opposite is true--you want the high-AC fighter; and against a DM who uses lots of random tables that include both kinds of opponents, you'll see yet a third kind of player behavior, opting for mixed strategies and versatility.

* Okay, I changed my mind on this. Druids definitely become overpowered relative to clerics because druids excel at summoning, and the game rules you'd be using make summoning a power strategy. Expect to see** lots of Magma Mephits, conjured wolves/snakes/spiders/draft horses/owls, and Earth Elementals in this campaign. Clerics can do a tiny bit of this at high level via Planar Ally but druids are better at it.

** Depending on your player mentality that is. Some players might just embrace the inevitable and stop worrying about death. "For King and Country!" Not everyone wants to hide behind summoned creatures and prioritize survival above all else.

 

[Oofta]

It's really not hard to kill PCs if that's what you want to do.

From the PHB
Damage at 0 Hit Points.
If you take any damage while you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw failure. If the damage is from a critical hit, you suffer two failures instead. If the damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum, you suffer instant death.

and since a dying character is normally unconscious

Unconscious
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.
Any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature.

So just have the bad guys attack the PCs when they're down (with advantage). If it's within 5 feet, it's two failed death saves per hit because each hit is a crit.

Personally I don't do that often (if ever) but in my campaign I've made it clear that raising the dead is not as simple as casting a spell. I use the Norse mythos as my basis where even the gods die permanently.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

I guess you get no half orcs because their relentless feature only kicks in when he does not die right away. So in every single case.

Which would be a huge nerf unless you rule that 0=death but isn't supermassive evisceration like what the existing instadeath rule implies, so unless you trigger 'traditional' instadeath you can use it.
If not, then yep, half Orc relentless becomes meaningless.

 

[jgsugden]

I find these types of discussions are really asking the wrong question. They ask how to make death more significant when they really should be asking how they can challenge PCs better when death isn't as likely as in earlier editions. After all, are you really relishing the idea of looking at your players' faces as their characters die? Or do you really just want to provide them with more interesting challenges with real stakes? There is a reason why death is much less likely.

After all, your PCs are heroes. If everything is a life and death struggle for them, they don't feel like heroes - they might just feel like victims. Is that fun?

You're better off challenging them in other ways. Give the PCs challenges that they have to resolve during their combat scenarios rather than just giving them deadly encounter after deadly encounter.

Here is an example of a series of events where midlevel PCs have opportunities to fail even if PC death is very unlikely.

1.) The PCs are at their favorite tavern when they notice a friend being seduced by a mysterious stranger. The friend leaves and the PCs are prompted to follow - and discover that they mysterious stranger is a vampire feeding off of their friend in an alley nearby - surrounded by charmed townsfolk minions. The PCs need to stop the vampire fast. How do they do it without killing the poor mind controlled people of the town?

2.) The vampire is slain and turns to mist. It flows through a crack in the wall and enters the home of a rival group of PCs. Do the PCs break in to follow it? If so, do the Rival PCs consider it an attack? Or do they help in the hunt for the Vampire? Or are they in league with the vampire? The fight might end when diplomacy, rather than violence, dictates. Or maybe they need to knock the rival PCs out, too...

3.) The PCs discover that the vampire has escaped into a pipe system that feeds into the sewars. There is only one being in town that could track a vampire through the sewars - the leader of the local Thieves' Guild - a Wererat. The PCs have tangled with his forces before and he is not going to be willing to help... unless the PCs force him, they charm him, or they come up with some other tactic. However, before they can do any of that, they need to get to him without him fleeing... Do they use stealth, speed or some other tactic?

4.) The charmed Wererat guides the PCs to an old abandoned mansion outside the town walls. There, they encounter more townsfolk minions that are patrolling the grounds for their master. The PCs need to get past them to get to the vampire - which means either stealth to avoid detection, or ways to take them down that do not involve killing them. And they have to do it while avoiding traps the vampire has set, etc...

5.) After 'Sleeping' the townsfolk the PCs enter the lair and discover that the vampire isn't just a wandering monster... it is there for a reason. It has been sent by a powerful bad guy to do something. However, as soon as it becomes aware that the PCs are there, it (and its remaining minions) begins to race around the mansion destroying the evidence of what it is there to do. The monster doesn't even fight back... the only thought it has is to destroy the evidence. Can the PCs save enough evidence to piece together the plot?

6.) After killing it again, the PCs follow the vampire mist to the coffin deep in a subbasement and prepare to end the threat permanently - only to discover there is a powerful trap! If they set it off, the entire house begins to collapse. The PCs need to race out of the house before it collapses on them. However, undead spirits are rising to block their path. Further, If the PCs don't kill the spirits as the heroes flee the collapsing building, the spirits will likely get to the town and attack it. If they do stop to fight, they risk the house collapsing on them and sealing them in the rubble while the monsters move through it and get to an unprotected town. Oh, and did they gather the evidence before they set off the trap? If not, they need to gather what they can while the walls collapse around them.

7.) The PCs collect their evidence and discover that the evil mastermind is a lich in a tower far away. However, much remains unclear about his plan and the PCs would be well served not to go to the tower with so little information. The lich is a known associate of an Ancient Dragon (which is vastly more powerful than the PCs) that lives in the Lonely Mountain and there are clues that the dragon might know useful information. Do the PCs go visit the powerful dragon and ask it questions about the lich? If so, they find a very bored dragon. The PCs off tribute in exchange for the answers they seek... but the dragon decides that it would rather amuse itself by playing with the adventurers. The PCs are put through their paces as they need to find a way to amuse the dragon enough to persuade it to deliver the information - the dragon will likely kick them out before they die, but it won't give them the information they seek unless it is sufficiently amused before they are shown the door. How would this play out differently for an Ancient Red, Brass, Copper or Green dragon?

PCs might never feel like they're in risk of dying in any of these 'battles', but they can feel challenged. I think that is what you really want.

 

[n0nym]

Snip

Consider your little vampire scenario looted ! It's really good.

On topic : I think the problem in 5th edition is this "all or nothing" dilemna. I've seen 2 TPK so far, but only one PC ever died, and that was only because they were fighting gnolls and gnolls have a bad habit of gnawing fallen foes.

To prevent this, I simple use Lingering Injuries and have the "1" be Instant Death. It's not fun, but it makes the game gritty and somewhat realistic, which works well for the Sword and Sorcery and Dark Fantasy games I enjoy. Thanks to this, my PC are really cautious now and often flee combat or avoid it when they can, saving us a lot of time and making the game funnier.