Level Up (A5E) Deadlier combat

[Lanefan]

I believe being intentional about lethality is a helpful tool for a DM. It is not so much that one can say what the chance of death per encounter should be, but more - as you describe - that one can be mindful of overall death rates.

I tracked (in my campaigns, and against anecdotes from other DMs) and then calibrated toward party+level characters being needed to have party-characters survive to that level. With a 50% revival rate (i.e. only half of deaths turn out to be permanent). Note that in my campaign, replacement characters are generated at the bottom of the level below that of the lowest levelled survivor.

I do a "floor level" model, largely because of a bad experience with the method you use. Example of what happened: a party of 5th-levels lose a character. Replacement comes in at 4th. A while later, party lose another 5th - thus by the rule the replacement comes in at 3rd because the 4th-level guy has set the bar lower. Lather rinse repeat - I had a party go backward several levels once until I finally just put a floor on it.

Now what I do is that as the average level of the party increases the floor increases with it, such that if the party are all 5th level the floor where all replacements come in might be at 4th, to prevent the backslide.

For example, for a party of 4 in a campaign that will cap out at level 12, up to 16 characters will need to be generated. A dozen will die permanently, and there will be about the same number of non-permanent deaths (i.e. revivals using raise dead or similar).

Part of what this is addressing is the matter of tolerance, and the feeling of danger. I find players will tolerate that degree of mortality, and it inspires a decent sense of danger. Tolerance no doubt varies per player as normalised by their group. By which I mean that Jill could be more okay about losing characters than Jack, and both their feelings on the matter are influenced by their group.

Another factor to consider is intended length of campaign. Planning for an 8-month 6-adventure no-deviations path is going to be much different than planning for a 5+-year open-ended sandbox-style campaign.

 

[clearstream]

I do a "floor level" model, largely because of a bad experience with the method you use. Example of what happened: a party of 5th-levels lose a character. Replacement comes in at 4th. A while later, party lose another 5th - thus by the rule the replacement comes in at 3rd because the 4th-level guy has set the bar lower. Lather rinse repeat - I had a party go backward several levels once until I finally just put a floor on it.

Now what I do is that as the average level of the party increases the floor increases with it, such that if the party are all 5th level the floor where all replacements come in might be at 4th, to prevent the backslide.

I don't mind floor. My motive for using regression is to be punitive. Player characters that die fall behind those that do not. If multiple characters die in quick succession, the party loses ground. A TPK resets to zero, and for a save-the-world campaign arc that can amount to a fail state. (For an open-world, myriad-arc campaign, character level is less of a factor anyway.)

Another factor to consider is intended length of campaign. Planning for an 8-month 6-adventure no-deviations path is going to be much different than planning for a 5+-year open-ended sandbox-style campaign.

Maybe so. I value level loss in sessions, because that is what players wager. Their stake in the game, so to speak - is the number of sessions invested in their character. Near the end of the DMG there is a guide to sessions per level. If you use that (and mutatis mutandis whatever you do use) staking a level 2 character on a combat outcome risks 1 to 2 sessions, while staking a level 6 character risks about 12 sessions. That's if replacements come in at level 1.

Past level 2, my system flattens that stake to 4-6 sessions, assuming you will fall back one or two levels. (Data: In my last - 75 session - campaign, we had exactly one session where the level difference from highest to lowest in the party was three; in all other sessions that gap was zero, one or two... and usually one.) This is key, I believe: flatten the stake so that players don't risk their cumulative sessions, but only the last few to several.

However you accomplish that seems okay to me, just so long as you do!

 

[Lanefan]

I don't mind floor. My motive for using regression is to be punitive. Player characters that die fall behind those that do not. If multiple characters die in quick succession, the party loses ground. A TPK resets to zero, and for a save-the-world campaign arc that can amount to a fail state. (For an open-world, myriad-arc campaign, character level is less of a factor anyway.)

I used to think along the 'punitive' lines until that regression happened. Then I re-thought.

Maybe so. I value level loss in sessions, because that is what players wager. Their stake in the game, so to speak - is the number of sessions invested in their character. Near the end of the DMG there is a guide to sessions per level. If you use that (and mutatis mutandis whatever you do use) staking a level 2 character on a combat outcome risks 1 to 2 sessions, while staking a level 6 character risks about 12 sessions. That's if replacements come in at level 1.

Gotcha.

Round here it can sometimes take 4-6 real-world months to bump, playing more or less weekly. That way, along with cycling in and out different parties etc., a campaign can last for a good long time (i.e. 10+ years) without the levels getting insane. That said, the power curve isn't all that steep, thus a character who's a level lower than the party average is still quite likely to be able to keep up and then some.

 

[Scott Christian]

There are so many variables here: HP bloat at higher levels, the definition of damage, healing spells, range, death saves, short and long rests, the variability of hit dice, conditions, exhaustion, and the biggest - the DM.

If you want things more complex and deadlier, I suggest adding a crit table. Adds to the variability of dice rolls, can swing the combat quickly, and allows the DM to add permanent injuries that affect stats.

 

[Kinematics]

On the issue of the yo-yo healing, some have suggested exhaustion levels when it happens, or long-term lingering injuries, or similar mechanics.

The main issue with those mechanics are that they're long term, and generally outside the scope of the immediate fight. They're also things that you can address "later". Most of the time they have limited, if any, effect on the ongoing fight.

I think a more immediate penalty would be more useful, and it has to be easily inserted into the existing 5E mechanics. Combat is the thing that is most easily slowed down and made worse by extra mechanics.

So the simple problem is: If a character drops to 0 HP, and is healed before his next turn, within the current combat system there is almost no downside. The only loss was the action of the player who healed the downed fighter, and that's something the healer was probably going to do anyway. Some classes can even do that as a bonus action, which means it doesn't really interrupt them at all.

The main issue on the fighter side is that when the fighter drops to 0, it doesn't happen on his turn; it's some sort of enemy attack. Assuming the healer heals him at the next available opportunity, about half the time it will get him back on his feet before his next turn, and half the time he'll lose one turn waiting for the heal.

So the yo-yo effect is most prominent when the fighter is downed, and then healed, between two adjacent turns, and when the healer doesn't have to spend any effort (action time) restoring the fighter to active ability. The fighter loses no combat time, and the healer loses no significant action time.

From that perspective, you want to penalize either the fighter's combat time, or the healer's action time. Changing the healer's action time is undesirable, as there are so many different ways to heal. Changing the fighter's combat time, however, is much easier. It's also more in line with players' expectations, as seen in the suggestions for exhaustion and the like.

So, from that perspective, I'd propose an extremely simple change that doesn't add new mechanics, and doesn't slow down combat: [[ If you are cured back up from 0 HP into the positives, you are stunned for 1 round. ]] The shock of being knocked out and being brought back from the brink of death is not so easily shaken off.

That means you're guaranteed the loss of one action round (aside from any rounds you were sitting at 0 HP), and can't just continue to attack uninterrupted. It also puts you in a vulnerable state during that time (attackers have advantage, you auto-fail Str and Dex saves, you can't move or act), which should certainly be the case after being taken down. It makes a party's position shakier when trying to recover from a dangerous situation.

This would not be a change to make things deadlier directly, but it's designed to address the issue that there is no consequence for dropping to 0 HP. So it prevents the most extreme form of yo-yo'ing, hopefully reducing the amount of aggravation it causes, and dialing back the need to kill characters just to prevent it.

 

[tetrasodium]

On the issue of the yo-yo healing, some have suggested exhaustion levels when it happens, or long-term lingering injuries, or similar mechanics.

The main issue with those mechanics are that they're long term, and generally outside the scope of the immediate fight. They're also things that you can address "later". Most of the time they have limited, if any, effect on the ongoing fight.

I think a more immediate penalty would be more useful, and it has to be easily inserted into the existing 5E mechanics. Combat is the thing that is most easily slowed down and made worse by extra mechanics.

So the simple problem is: If a character drops to 0 HP, and is healed before his next turn, within the current combat system there is almost no downside. The only loss was the action of the player who healed the downed fighter, and that's something the healer was probably going to do anyway. Some classes can even do that as a bonus action, which means it doesn't really interrupt them at all.

The main issue on the fighter side is that when the fighter drops to 0, it doesn't happen on his turn; it's some sort of enemy attack. Assuming the healer heals him at the next available opportunity, about half the time it will get him back on his feet before his next turn, and half the time he'll lose one turn waiting for the heal.

So the yo-yo effect is most prominent when the fighter is downed, and then healed, between two adjacent turns, and when the healer doesn't have to spend any effort (action time) restoring the fighter to active ability. The fighter loses no combat time, and the healer loses no significant action time.

From that perspective, you want to penalize either the fighter's combat time, or the healer's action time. Changing the healer's action time is undesirable, as there are so many different ways to heal. Changing the fighter's combat time, however, is much easier. It's also more in line with players' expectations, as seen in the suggestions for exhaustion and the like.

So, from that perspective, I'd propose an extremely simple change that doesn't add new mechanics, and doesn't slow down combat: [[ If you are cured back up from 0 HP into the positives, you are stunned for 1 round. ]] The shock of being knocked out and being brought back from the brink of death is not so easily shaken off.

That means you're guaranteed the loss of one action round (aside from any rounds you were sitting at 0 HP), and can't just continue to attack uninterrupted. It also puts you in a vulnerable state during that time (attackers have advantage, you auto-fail Str and Dex saves, you can't move or act), which should certainly be the case after being taken down. It makes a party's position shakier when trying to recover from a dangerous situation.

This would not be a change to make things deadlier directly, but it's designed to address the issue that there is no consequence for dropping to 0 HP. So it prevents the most extreme form of yo-yo'ing, hopefully reducing the amount of aggravation it causes, and dialing back the need to kill characters just to prevent it.

The way death saves work is a huge part of the problem but addressing that only addresses part of the problem Getting rid of ranged healing would help too, but even touch healing is hindered by needing to carefully scoot around one shift/5 foot step or suffer AoOs because the tactical element is missing from 5e. Back in 3.5/4e every heal hurt because youprepared each spell individually & might only have 2 of this heal 3 of that & 1 of his other across the group or your encounter power(s) worked once per encounter & daily wouldn't be up again till tomorrow once you used it.

 

[Lanefan]

@Kinematics ' idea isn't bad at all in some ways. What it does is push a bit towards what I'd see as a desirable end result: that it somehow be made more useful to cure people before they get to 0 than after.

Right now, sheer arithmetic says it's often better to cure someone after they reach 0 because due to the fact that negative hit points aren't tracked any excess damage done by the foe is wasted (unless it's a crazy amount), thus curing someone up from 3 h.p. to 9 h.p. suddenly becomes a far less efficient use of a spell (you only cure 6 h.p.) than curing the same person up from 0 (-14) to +1 (in effect you're curing 15 h.p.).

And as 5e is already easy enough, the idea of there being some sort of penalty (short-term, long-term, or even both) to healing up from 0 is the way to go. Were it me I'd somehow base it on how much extra damage you took (and yes this would mean tracking negative hit points, deal with it) such that someone who only went to 0 (-1) would take far less of a penalty on curing than someone who went to 0 (-12).

 

[Imaculata]

And what if you only got to recover from 0 hp once per day? Wouldn't that also solve the healing ping pong issue?

 

[tetrasodium]

And what if you only got to recover from 0 hp once per day? Wouldn't that also solve the healing ping pong issue?

recovering all hit points to give surviving a day of massacre & slaughter less impact on your future well being tomorrow than a night of hard drinking has massive implications. I went into detail on ihow it used to be over in this post. Getting back all health is puts the threshold of "we have this bag of magic healing stuff & will use it when we notice six pit fiends surrounding our tiny hut & one is in the process of casting dispel magic". A big part of why combat in older versions felt more deadly was because recovering was either going to demolish your piggybank restocking that bag of recovery stuff you slowly filled through all these levels of adventuring or it's going to take so long you really need to go back to town. "I think we will be safe here for eight whole hours" is a huge difference from "we are level 7 & get 7 hp back each night of rest but bob the cleric can use his heal skill & forgo the rest himself to bump that up to 2 hit points per level for a full 8 hours of rest in a day, or 4 hit points per level for each full day of complete restfor up o 6 patients if we get to somewhere that bedrest is an option" makes for an entirely different level of risk when you have a couple people down 10-20+hp & it says nothing about the 1 point of ability damage recovery/day out here in the wild vrs 5e where ability damage is not a thing but wraith's & maybe a couple other things target max hp which you don't get back till you sleep for the night no matter how rough the conditions of that long rest.

Edit: It's like the difference between being a quarterback in a tackle football game against a team that has a serious grudge with you & being a quarterback in a game of flag football in PE. In one you have good reason to fear for your life when the defensive line fails & a 200-300 pound wall of muscle is about to crush you in slow motion... In the other you might trip & get a grass stain if your unlucky

 

[Lanefan]

And what if you only got to recover from 0 hp once per day? Wouldn't that also solve the healing ping pong issue?

Perhaps to the point of overkill: every time someone went to 0 and recovered the adventuring day would stop right there.

If there was a corollary to this that said you risked being knocked out on reaching 10 h.p. or less but could be cured up normally even if unconscious, this would be good-ish to go. (or knock-out risk starts at 0 and death at -10)

I don't mind the idea of someone being knocked out during a battle, patched up afterwards, and more-or-less good to go in the next fight. But 5e (and all of D&D, for that matter) doesn't have much design space between fully-functional and dead; and death saves don't help any - is someone who's at 0 merely knocked out, or dead, or dying? We don't know until after the fact, which plays hell with narration in the moment.