D&D 5E Dying House Rule

[CapnZapp]

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.

The problem is that this is a massive increase in lethality - it is a bigger change that you'd think.

Not that that is necessarily a problem if you know what you're doing, but there are reasons why it isn't in the game:

• If you can't cast a spell to bring back a fallen ally to the combat, things become much more dangerous.
• The game has never been built around the idea that zero hp is a big thing.
• You become much more sensitive to bad luck.
• It is no fun sitting out some adventuring fun just because you're knocked out for hours.

While I understand the drive to make things realistic and gritty, it just changes the game too much imo.

And then we have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. In comparison, the -10 rule (you "bottom out" not at 0 hp but at -10) tweaks the game just enough for a first level spell to not automatically be enough to bring back the fallen ally, which is all you need.

 

[CydKnight]

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.

I don't think you are supposed to like it. It is my understanding of the game that a DM should allow the creature to act the way it was intended (or implied based on the DM's assessment) based on description, alignment, and RAW. The DM's personal preferences should not influence that one way or another. With that said, one is certainly always welcome to House Rule it in any way they feel works best for their game.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Coming from 2E and 3.5, I've felt that the dying rules in 5E lack the teeth of those prior editions. While you can certainly wipe a party in 5E, the threat to an individual that they might fail a save or suck death effect, or be low on hit points and get instantly killed when they went below -9, is simply not there. In 5E a character will at a minimum have a couple of rounds on the ground before dying, and in most cases much longer. In fact a PC left unaided, odds are, will stabilize without any help from their teamates. This significantly reduces the tension for the individual PC, and with less of a sense of risk, there is less a sense of reward for surviving the fight IMO.

My goal is to create a situation where the risk of dying was statistically similar to 2E or 3E. I may not have hit the mark on the head, but I feel as though I've come close. I kept the "death saves" system but altered it significantly as follows...

- a single failed death save = death
- PC's will never self stabilize. They must always get assistance from a teammate
- the moment a character drops below 0 hit points they must make their first death save thus the hit that dropped them may have been instantly lethal
- the initial death save, and the death save made the round after are at a DC of 3. Each round thereafter the DC worsens by 1.

I'd particularly like to hear from those of you playing 5E that initially cut their teeth on D&D in 2E and 3E. If you preferred the old systems how do you feel about this bridge between old and new?

I cut my teeth on 2nd edition. My feedback: it won't fix issues with Revify, but it DOES make Revivify access more important, and the stakes higher in combat. I have since quibbles with the world building implications of "you never stabilize on your own", and as a DM I'd probably keep the "three successes stabilizes" rule, but overall I like it both as a player and DM. I would totally play in a campaign with this rule.

It may be relevant to add that I favor Combat As War, so my goal would always be to win with NO damage taken. This rule simply raises the stakes and, to an extent, explains why the PCs are special for their willingness to risk death.

Sent from my Moto G Play using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't think you are supposed to like it. It is my understanding of the game that a DM should allow the creature to act the way it was intended (or implied based on the DM's assessment) based on description, alignment, and RAW. The DM's personal preferences should not influence that one way or another. With that said, one is certainly always welcome to House Rule it in any way they feel works best for their game.

Sorry what?

You talk as if the way 5e is working is some natural god-given approach. But it's not. It is a deliberately "toothless" approach (to use the OPs choice of terms), that results in certain undesirable monster behavior to become rational.

If you don't like it, you should definitely not just stand there and take it. If you don't like a rule, chances are it is the rule that is wrong, not you!

 

[ExploderWizard]

[*]The game has never been built around the idea that zero hp is a big thing.

OD&D- 0hp= dead
B/X- 0hp= dead
AD&D- 0 hp = mandatory week of rest with no adventuring possible.

Zero hp is a pretty big thing historically speaking.

 

[CydKnight]

Sorry what?

You talk as if the way 5e is working is some natural god-given approach. But it's not. It is a deliberately "toothless" approach (to use the OPs choice of terms), that results in certain undesirable monster behavior to become rational.

If you don't like it, you should definitely not just stand there and take it. If you don't like a rule, chances are it is the rule that is wrong, not you!

Wow, dude. Sorry, didn't mean to imply you were "wrong" just that I saw it differently. It's just my opinion and not personal. Like my last sentence reads ....one is certainly always welcome to House Rule it any way they feel works best for their game.

As far as "5E is working is some God-given approach. But it's not", that's fair I guess but it wasn't what I was trying to say. Nothing is perfect. However I do think irrational behavior from a monster is supposed should be expected.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

The problem here is that 5E's encounter construction guidelines are generally interpreted by DMs in such a way that the goblins CANNOT win, and ought to know it. Many DMs are reluctant to even throw a Deadly-rated fight at the PCs, with a non-zero chance of monster victory ("TPK"), much less a fight where TPK is the most likely outcome.

So why are the goblins fighting at all? Either they are suicidal lemmings, or their threat assessment on the PCs must be off. Perhaps they outnumber the PCs 4:1 but don't realize that the PCs are all 6th level combat veterans. But then why do they fight to the death instead of quickly breaking when the PCs turn the "ambush" and effortlessly inflict 20% casualties without taking any in return?

It's relatively difficult to justify a scenario in which inferior foes engage the PCs with tactics optimized for inflicting PC death, without also optimizing for their own survival by NOT engaging while they remain the inferior force. Most of the scenarios which work here only make sense if the PCs have actively created the situation, e.g. by attacking from an unexpected direction (through the sewer tunnels).

In short, if you the DM want dramatic tension in combat, you either need rules that make even random encounters potentially deadly (per OP's proposal), or unintelligent enemies like zombies and beasts who seek kills but not in a rational way, or you need intelligent enemies who ramp up the dramatic tension on ALL scales: tactical AND operational and possibly strategic too.

Sent from my Moto G Play using EN World mobile app

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

The problem is that this is a massive increase in lethality - it is a bigger change that you'd think.

Not that that is necessarily a problem if you know what you're doing, but there are reasons why it isn't in the game:

• If you can't cast a spell to bring back a fallen ally to the combat, things become much more dangerous.
• The game has never been built around the idea that zero hp is a big thing.
• You become much more sensitive to bad luck.
• It is no fun sitting out some adventuring fun just because you're knocked out for hours.

While I understand the drive to make things realistic and gritty, it just changes the game too much imo.

And then we have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. In comparison, the -10 rule (you "bottom out" not at 0 hp but at -10) tweaks the game just enough for a first level spell to not automatically be enough to bring back the fallen ally, which is all you need.

As I said before in the groups I play it is usual for monsters to attack downed oponents to finish them of, this adds lethlity.
If they players are aware of this they way they play will adjust for this.

The main adjustment is in healing, compared to other groups I have seen in rl and on streams we tend to start healing earlyer and with smaller heals being under half hitpoints is seen as something bad as reaching 0 is so dangroes.
In the other groups I have seen characters drop down much lower before they told the healer character they needed a heal.

This results in a characters being knocked uncounsious is more rare in our games.
But it comes at the cost of the healer character spending more of his actions to heal.

 

[CAFRedblade]

For creatures that are killing for food or just being mindless attackers, they can keep beating on the down pc. For intelligent attackers, they may threaten the PC's to finish off their comrade if they don't disarm/stop attacking their allies. Not all the time mind you. Also, if attackers see a PC pop back up with hit points, they will focus him back down and ensure he stays down.

Maybe have failed or sucessfull death saving throws implement a negative/positive to returning hitpoints. For example, a minus 3 or 5 hp penalty to being healed per failed save. Or 1/2hp per level for scaling.

 

[Huntsman57]

I cut my teeth on 2nd edition. My feedback: it won't fix issues with Revify, but it DOES make Revivify access more important, and the stakes higher in combat. I have since quibbles with the world building implications of "you never stabilize on your own", and as a DM I'd probably keep the "three successes stabilizes" rule, but overall I like it both as a player and DM. I would totally play in a campaign with this rule.

It may be relevant to add that I favor Combat As War, so my goal would always be to win with NO damage taken. This rule simply raises the stakes and, to an extent, explains why the PCs are special for their willingness to risk death.

Sent from my Moto G Play using EN World mobile app

Cleric abilities like Revivify don't bother me quite as much tbh. Do they feel a bit cheap? Yes...but really, the cleric is way weaker than in 3E and I almost feel as though spells like these give the class a purpose. Healing is weaker than the older editions (unless if you're a life cleric perhaps), raise dead and related spells are largely unnecessary, and the cleric's damage output is fairly low compared to most other classes as well. The cleric has quite a few useful low level spells, but begins to level out and fall off in value by 9th level or so IMO. I guess I figure if a player decided to play a cleric, I should take pity and give him a bit more latitude in his spell use rather than house ruling such spells out.