D&D 5E Dying House Rule

[S'mon]

The problem is, this assumes us players have no problem with monsters hitting the defenseless and fallen.

I certainly sympathize with your position, myself hating the idea that monsters should keep hacking at fallen party members to maintain the game's deadliness.

But it's the best way for monsters to win. Surely you don't object to monsters trying to win?

Edit: It still doesn't make 5e a deadly game - PCs just cast Revivify after the fight. Permanent death
IME is almost always due to PCs losing a fight & fleeing, leaving some behind on the ground.

 

[CapnZapp]

But it's the best way for monsters to win. Surely you don't object to monsters trying to win?

Edit: It still doesn't make 5e a deadly game - PCs just cast Revivify after the fight. Permanent death
IME is almost always due to PCs losing a fight & fleeing, leaving some behind on the ground.

I realize your post was light-hearted, but I really want the monsters to NOT have to beat on the fallen.

Doing that imo should be reserved for truly evil and depraved/ruthless monsters.

Regular guards and goblins and wolves and wizards should focus on the ones still standing.

The rules need to reflect that.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[ExploderWizard]

I realize your post was light-hearted, but I really want the monsters to NOT have to beat on the fallen.

Doing that imo should be reserved for truly evil and depraved/ruthless monsters.

Regular guards and goblins and wolves and wizards should focus on the ones still standing.

The rules need to reflect that.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

It really depends on the monster. Sentient creatures would have to be very evil to do such things but for simple stupid hungry beasts, it is the logical thing to do.
Think about the monsters involved and the motivation for the combat. If that motivation has anything to do with hunting for food then a monster that drops a PC is more likely to drag the PC away to devour in peace than keep fighting just for the sake of fighting.

It isn't personal, its just dinner.

 

[CapnZapp]

It really depends on the monster. Sentient creatures would have to be very evil to do such things but for simple stupid hungry beasts, it is the logical thing to do.
Think about the monsters involved and the motivation for the combat. If that motivation has anything to do with hunting for food then a monster that drops a PC is more likely to drag the PC away to devour in peace than keep fighting just for the sake of fighting.

It isn't personal, its just dinner.

Sorry, but there is nothing peaceful about that - the other characters will do their utmost to prevent that from happening.

And "drag the unconscious PC away" is one thing, and it's fine.

It's the "keep attacking the single character that does not pose a threat" I want gone from the game.

In the end, I added back negative hit points (down to -10). This fixes most of the egregious cases, since now a character must make a serious investment to bring back a fallen comrade (you can't simply "dot" him with a Healing Word or single point of Lay on Hands healing.

The point is to make fallen creatures stay down long enough to make it a non-stupid idea to switch to the still-standing threats, thereby doing away with the "it's smart to kill off fallen foes before switching to new enemies" idea.

It may be "smart" but it also leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I don't want to play a beer and pretzels game like D&D like that.

 

[Flamestrike]

Im playtesting hard mode campaign rules.

Dying saving throws being DC 15 but you get to add your Con modifier to the save.

You get a level of exhaustion for each failed save.

Death is also at 0 and remaining damage is [10 or (1/2 your max HP)] which ever is higher.

Resurrection strips a point of Con, which is followed by a DC 5 Con ability check (labelled a Resurrection survival check). Failure = Permadeath. DC 5 keeps the percentage at roughly AD&Ds % chance. I was going to use the old % numbers for an Old school feel.

Did I mention that I also multiplied the material component costs for the resurrection spells by a factor of 10.

Its also 3d6 in order for stats.

Its evil.

 

[Oofta]

I could see adding back negative hit points - but I would keep it "you are unconscious until you hit -10 or x% of your total". It never made sense to me that someone with 10 HP and 100 HP died at the same negative HP. YMMV.

As far as the game being more deadly, hitting people when they're down generally does it. Hitting an unconscious creature is automatically a crit, crits count as two failed death saves.

But ultimately I'm not sure it adds much to the game. I've switched over to the alternate rule that a short rest being overnight and a long rest being several days (usually a week). We regularly go two (4-5 hour) game sessions without a long rest. In addition, getting someone back from the dead is not as simple as casting a spell and may not even be possible.

I have never been a big fan of killer DMs. I had one that would just have everyone roll up multiple characters and then randomly roll a die and say things like "A giant hand comes out of the wall and squashes Throg flat." It wasn't fun.

So my goal isn't to kill off PCs. If it's to instill the fear of failure in them and to have something at stake. To set up obstacles in their way - some of which may be impossible to overcome until they are higher level - and have engaging games where they try to overcome those obstacles.

 

[epithet]

... I really want the monsters to NOT have to beat on the fallen.

Doing that imo should be reserved for truly evil and depraved/ruthless monsters.

Regular guards and goblins and wolves and wizards should focus on the ones still standing.

...

I think the regular goblins want to win. Sure, it makes sense for them to focus on the enemy that's still standing and to ignore the one that's unconscious on the floor... until the unconscious one gets up and starts fighting again. Once that happens, it makes sense for the goblin to take a moment to make sure that once you're down, you stay down.

With animals (of animal intelligence) you should keep in mind the motivation of the beastie. If it is defending its territory or young, it will focus on those who are still a threat. If it is hunting, though, it will grab the first unconscious PC and start dragging him or her off to their dinner date.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

It really depends on the monster. Sentient creatures would have to be very evil to do such things but for simple stupid hungry beasts, it is the logical thing to do.
Think about the monsters involved and the motivation for the combat. If that motivation has anything to do with hunting for food then a monster that drops a PC is more likely to drag the PC away to devour in peace than keep fighting just for the sake of fighting.

It isn't personal, its just dinner.

Any inteligent creature that is aware of magical healing existing would make sure a oponent is dead, knowing that oponent is just one spell away from being a treath again.
The only reason not to make sure your oponent is if you intend to take prisoners, but if it's a fght to the death ofcourse you make sure they are dead.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Sorry, but there is nothing peaceful about that - the other characters will do their utmost to prevent that from happening.

One would certainly hope so!

And "drag the unconscious PC away" is one thing, and it's fine.

It's the "keep attacking the single character that does not pose a threat" I want gone from the game.

I agree with that general concept. In order for it to make sense though, that character should not be able to still pose a threat.

In the end, I added back negative hit points (down to -10). This fixes most of the egregious cases, since now a character must make a serious investment to bring back a fallen comrade (you can't simply "dot" him with a Healing Word or single point of Lay on Hands healing.

The point is to make fallen creatures stay down long enough to make it a non-stupid idea to switch to the still-standing threats, thereby doing away with the "it's smart to kill off fallen foes before switching to new enemies" idea.

It may be "smart" but it also leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I don't want to play a beer and pretzels game like D&D like that.

The -10 hp helps somewhat. Even better would be a knocked out rule. Any character dropped in combat would be knocked out/ out of action for d6 hours regardless of applied healing short of a heal spell. So once a character goes down then they truly are no longer a threat and thus there would be no sane reason to keep attacking. No longer would healers just wait until someone drops to heal them. It would become vital that all party members stay above 0 hit points.

 

[CapnZapp]

Any inteligent creature that is aware of magical healing existing would make sure a oponent is dead, knowing that oponent is just one spell away from being a treath again.
The only reason not to make sure your oponent is if you intend to take prisoners, but if it's a fght to the death ofcourse you make sure they are dead.

This is what I don't like.

I want monsters to focus on the standing. And so I need the rules to make this a reasonable stance to take. And so I need the rules to not allow healers to bring back characters in the fight with 1 hp heals.