D&D 5E Why my friends hate talking to me about 5e.

[EzekielRaiden]

Revivify, reincarnate,raise dead, true resurrection. You don't even need someone in the group who can cast it because npcs can be paid or bartered with to cast it for you. 5e is the first edition I've regularly seen players get a huge gp value of diamonds, be told its the component for xxx raise dead type spell and excitedly want to sell it to buy stuff even when it's their first pile of diamonds.


Death is anything but permanent in d&d

Well, before character level 5, there is no revivify, and if we're already talking about house-ruling so that exhaustion hits at 0, nothing stops house-ruling these other things too (or just banning the spells.) That means little at best in context.

More importantly, "permanent" in this context means "they're dead, and they're going to stay that way unless you do something." Which is generally the case regardless of context. The "you can't do anything about this" is covered by the "irrevocable" thing.* Which, as stated, if we're already in the land of house-rules, DMs can do whatever they like, so your rebuttal is specious.

So: why is random, permanent, irrevocable death the only risk?

*I separate "permanent" from "irrevocable" because you can keep one or the other and still have an interesting concept. A death can be irrevocable (the players don't have anything they can to do fix it) but not permanent (because something else will reverse it later.) E.g. Gandalf's death in Moria is irrevocable, as there are no resurrection spells in that universe, but it isn't permanent, because Gandalf is a Maiar and thus "death" mostly just means "temporarily not having a body."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, before character level 5, there is no revivify, and if we're already talking about house-ruling so that exhaustion hits at 0, nothing stops house-ruling these other things too (or just banning the spells.) That means little at best in context.

Yes. I always ban resurrection spells other than Revivify.

More importantly, "permanent" in this context means "they're dead, and they're going to stay that way unless you do something." The "you can't do anything about this" is covered by the "irrevocable" thing--which, as stated, if we're already in the land of house-rules, DMs can do whatever they like, so your rebuttal is specious.

So: why is random, permanent, irrevocable death the only risk?

It is not the only risk, but it is the end point of the risks culminating that the mechanics recognise. Narrative risks are not codified in D&D rules.

In any case, if we are using a system that dedicates a lot of rules on combat and reducing and restoring hit point, then I feel it makes sense for that number to actually matter. That if you run out the HP, something bad actually happens. Otherwise, why even bother?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's quite a surprising stance, compared to what most people who advocate for these rules seek. Or, at least, what most people that I've seen advocate for stuff like this are seeking.

Generally speaking, it's all in, balls-to-the-wall, no-holds-barred meatgrinder-fests. E.g. at least one person here has already explicitly said if combats aren't deadly they literally aren't worth having, period, and it's clear several people agree.

I don't think it is surprising at all. In a game where resources matter, having to use a significant chunk of your resources to overcome an encounter is certain sort of partial failure (or a partial success, if you're an optimist.) But for that attrition to matter, something must happen if you eventually run out. It might not actually be death. It might be having to retreat, having the enemies to succeed in their plans. But that might be because the characters have spent all their resources and if they pushed on they would be likely to die.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes. I always ban resurrection spells other than Revivify.


It is not the only risk, but it is the end point of the risks culminating that the mechanics recognise. Narrative risks are not codified in D&D rules.

In any case, if we are using a system that dedicates a lot of rules on combat and reducing and restoring hit point, then I feel it makes sense for that number to actually matter. That if you run out the HP, something bad actually happens. Otherwise, why even bother?

Why do the risks need to be codified in the rules? We're literally discussing rewriting the rules for fun. Why is official-ness important now when it's never been important before?

I don't think it is surprising at all. In a game where resources matter, having to use a significant chunk of your resources to overcome an encounter is certain sort of partial failure (or a partial success, if you're an optimist.) But for that attrition to matter, something must happen if you eventually run out. It might not actually be death. It might be having to retreat, having the enemies to succeed in their plans. But that might be because the characters have spent all their resources and if they pushed on they would be likely to die.

That's...not what I'm talking about.

I'm surprised at the combination of "combats should generally NOT be deadly" + "exhaustion death spirals should be present." I have seen an extremely strong (rather, up to this point, essentially universal) correlation between "I want the game to be really dangerous, with death a serious risk" and "basically every combat should be deadly++." If someone talked about adding more mechanics for making the game punishing, it was something to go on top of "nah bruh, the game CALLS it 'deadly,' but you gotta go way beyond 'deadly' to get any challenge at all."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why do the risks need to be codified in the rules? We're literally discussing rewriting the rules for fun. Why is official-ness important now when it's never been important before?

I don't understand what you mean. If you want to suggest houserules for some non-death defeat conditions go ahead.

That's...not what I'm talking about.

I'm surprised at the combination of "combats should generally NOT be deadly" + "exhaustion death spirals should be present." I have seen an extremely strong (rather, up to this point, essentially universal) correlation between "I want the game to be really dangerous, with death a serious risk" and "basically every combat should be deadly++." If someone talked about adding more mechanics for making the game punishing, it was something to go on top of "nah bruh, the game CALLS it 'deadly,' but you gotta go way beyond 'deadly' to get any challenge at all."

Sure, these rules increase lethality, at least if the game would be played like if the additional rules wouldn't exist. But it probably wouldn't. Exhaustion is pretty strong "do not proceed" indicator. In a sense it is a non-death defeat condition you want. Granted "the exhaustion on each failed death save" from the video is more hard core than the more common variant of one level per dropping to zero.

 

[Charlaquin]

It...doesn't manage exhaustion though. That would be like saying that retreat manages territory in warfare; it does not, it's admitting defeat. You, by definition, lose.

Retreat is an absolutely viable and often important tactic in warfare.

That's quite a surprising stance, compared to what most people who advocate for these rules seek. Or, at least, what most people that I've seen advocate for stuff like this are seeking.

Are you sure it isn’t just a misconception you have of what people who advocate for it are saying?

Generally speaking, it's all in, balls-to-the-wall, no-holds-barred meatgrinder-fests. E.g. at least one person here has already explicitly said if combats aren't deadly they literally aren't worth having, period, and it's clear several people agree.

No, what he said was that combats aren’t worth having if death isn’t a possible consequence, which I don’t agree with in all cases, but I do think is a perfectly reasonable stance that doesn’t at all require meat grinder play.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Retreat is an absolutely viable and often important tactic in warfare.

There's a reason I said "manages territory." When you retreat, you are surrendering territory. That's not managing territory.

When you retreat because of exhaustion (or the risk thereof), you are not managing exhaustion. You are surrendering because exhaustion is too dangerous.

Are you sure it isn’t just a misconception you have of what people who advocate for it are saying?

I mean, it's possible, but people tend to be quite explicit (gleefully so, I find) about how deadly they want things to be. It would be very strange for them to say that while not actually wanting things to be deadly.

No, what he said was that combats aren’t worth having if death isn’t a possible consequence, which I don’t agree with in all cases, but I do think is a perfectly reasonable stance that doesn’t at all require meat grinder play.

I don't understand the difference between "if death isn't a possible consequence" and "if combats aren't deadly." What other meaning is there for "deadly" than "death is a possible consequence"?

 

[Charlaquin]

There's a reason I said "manages territory." When you retreat, you are surrendering territory. That's not managing territory.

When you retreat because of exhaustion (or the risk thereof), you are not managing exhaustion. You are surrendering because exhaustion is too dangerous.

You’re retreating to rest, which is how you manage exhaustion. It is, at most, a short-term concession for the sake of greater long-term success. Losing the battle to win the war, as it were.

I mean, it's possible, but people tend to be quite explicit (gleefully so, I find) about how deadly they want things to be. It would be very strange for them to say that while not actually wanting things to be deadly.

They do want things to be deadly. It’s just that, that deadlines comes from long-term attrition, not individual encounters.

I don't understand the difference between "if death isn't a possible consequence" and "if combats aren't deadly." What other meaning is there for "deadly" than "death is a possible consequence"?

“Deadly” is a category of encounter difficulty. One can want death to be a possible result of combat, without wanting most combats to be within that difficulty category. Indeed, I do. I think most combats should be Medium difficulty, with a few easy and hard sprinkled in there, and the possibility, though fairly remote, of a deadly encounter, maybe once in a blue moon. And in general I want PCs to try to avoid encounters because they tax precious resources and don’t provide much reward if any. Again, the PCs should win most encounters they get into, but that victory should cost resources, and once those resources start running low, the players should look at retreating to rest and recover those resources as a viable tactic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Neither is roleplaying!

I don't understand this response.

 

[Mannahnin]

I don't understand the difference between "if death isn't a possible consequence" and "if combats aren't deadly." What other meaning is there for "deadly" than "death is a possible consequence"?

That death is a common, expected, or standard occurrence, rather than a possible one?