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

[Micah Sweet]

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?


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."

I don't think every combat should be deadly, but I do think every combat should the risk, however small depending on circumstance, of death as an outcome. A fight where that can't happen should be described, not played through.

 

[Mannahnin]

“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.

Right; are we talking "every encounter is deadly" as in "we expect at least one death every time we have occasion to roll initiative" or something similar, or are we talking "every encounter is Deadly" per the CR ratings scale, whether "because my players are skillful and min-max, and/or because my game rhythms usually have only 1-3 encounters per day, so they have plenty of resources and lesser encounters aren't challenging"?

I have very rarely seen anyone advocate for the former, though I've seen some OSR aficionados approach it. I've seen a LOT of 5E DMs talk about the latter.

 

[James Gasik]

Of course, retreating in of itself is not a guarantee. You can't just say "ah, my house rule to make players more likely to want to retreat" will result in their ability to do so.

I probably brought this point up in this thread already, but I'm too lazy to check. It's something I have to say a lot, because I see a lot of "just run then!" comments on this forum.

But unless you have the ability to actually slow your enemies down, how can you run? You withdraw. They can follow you. Some enemies are faster than you. Some have ranged attacks they can use.

Most enemies are not likely to go "oh look, those guys who attacked us are running away, great, let's let them go and hope they never come back" unless they are in as bad shape as the players.

And while the DMG has chase and pursuit rules, it's not clear on when you leave combat with enemies pursuing you, and when you switch to making Con checks and the like.

Also the "just go somewhere and rest". There's not always a designated "safe room". I know, we're all used to parties using their Leomund's Tiny Fortress of Solitude, but that is a level 3 spell, and not every group will have that on tap.

And what if your DM uses wandering monsters or patrols you can blunder into?

Running can have just as many random factors involved as fighting, so you can't just say "oh well, the players will just run" unless you've made it very clear that, in your game, this is a safer alternative than standing and fighting.

 

[Scott Christian]

Yeah, it’s not hard to kill PCs in 5E if the DM is really into that.

In my latest campaign, I’m trying out that if the PC goes down and is then returned to 1 hp or more, they gain 1 level of exhaustion. Not replacing Death saves though. So long as I don’t make each combat dangerous enough that PCs are likely to be going down during the fight, I think it’ll work out. Should make the PCs worrisome when someone gets low, but not kill the entire pace of the adventure because PCs are running around with multiple levels of exhaustion. If they are, they’re getting their butts kicked and I (or they, if they keep pushing on regardless) need to reconsider how dangerous the encounters are.

We've tried this. On the surface, I liked the idea. But it has a drawback, a big one...

Psychologically, no one wants to spend the rest of their session(s) dealing with this hinderance. Players like a challenge, they don't like handicaps. I don't know why, but it is almost universally true.

The solution needs to be not just narratively consistent, but also immediate. Much like a Pavlovian dog treat, but one that is bitter and instantaneous, and then once swallowed, goes away.

 

[Stormonu]

We've tried this. On the surface, I liked the idea. But it has a drawback, a big one...

Psychologically, no one wants to spend the rest of their session(s) dealing with this hinderance. Players like a challenge, they don't like handicaps. I don't know why, but it is almost universally true.

The solution needs to be not just narratively consistent, but also immediate. Much like a Pavlovian dog treat, but one that is bitter and instantaneous, and then once swallowed, goes away.

Bah, might as well not have them take HP damage either because they won't like that.

Players may not like lingering conditions, but it's been proven they'll find ways to soldier on throughout the editions.

 

[James Gasik]

On the other hand, lingering conditions are generally the result of monster special abilities and spells, not a consequence of losing hit points. And most of these conditions can be removed by casing the right spells. Exhaustion is odd in that it's not something the Cleric has a band-aid for.

A lot of talk was spent on "specific injuries" in AD&D, for example, with Gary going on a long discussion about it in the DMG (in a rare moment of kindness towards those dirty, dirty players). Of course, the crux of his argument is that he was convinced any such rules would somehow benefit the players (?), as if he wasn't cognizant that there are many, many more monsters out there who would be happy to stab out your eye or cut off your hand than player characters.

I think the 2e DMG goes over this point as well, mentioning that if one used injuries by level 5, the players will be a sorry looking lot, missing limbs, noses, eyes, and ears, due to the rigors of "realistic" combat.

That D&D continues to use hit points at all shows that the developers want heroes to be able to shrug off sword blows and lightning bolts and keep on going, like an 80's action hero.

And, as someone said to me not too long ago, "how can the most popular TTRPG in the universe be wrong?". : )

 

[Scott Christian]

Bah, might as well not have them take HP damage either because they won't like that.

Players may not like lingering conditions, but it's been proven they'll find ways to soldier on throughout the editions.

I agree, they will find a way to soldier on. But losing hit points is exactly what I was getting at. It is immediate. It is accepted. It does not make a player frustrated, it makes them think tactically. Conditions make many players frustrated, especially if they are commonplace.

 

[Mannahnin]

Running can have just as many random factors involved as fighting, so you can't just say "oh well, the players will just run" unless you've made it very clear that, in your game, this is a safer alternative than standing and fighting.

We did just have a big thread about this, ja? There is a procedure, but how to transition from combat to it is apparently left up to the DM's discretion. I agree that if DMs want players retreating to be a tactic players use, we need to make sure they're aware it's an option and make sure the odds are reasonable.

D&D General - Run Away!

If players act that way it's the DM's fault. They think the DM won't kill their PC. Probably because they never do. Kill a few. They'll learn and start to run. These folks have been playing with me for years -- decades in some cases. They know. Yet here we are.

www.enworld.org

 

[tetrasodium]

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."

Two parts to this because you asked two questions. In the past there were two ways to handle loebone to five games. One was was to focus on that super dangerous gameplsy where kill rafs/investigate a zombie etc were still interesting and allowed the players
To slot themselves solidly into the world while building up low end life saving items like potions/better gear that would soon be getting replaced/etc the second was to run a different kind of game #stsrt after 5or whatever.

5e got rid of that first type of game you starting everyone with a full set of gear, effectively removing the risk of death and designing so players don't actually need anything with. Only need to upgrade it if they do get it.

The second part is that death is the only risk because wotc removed all of the others. 5e has a recovery model that you don't really even see in video games where you usually at least need to visit a special location. 5e is designed so there is no need for gold to fund magic item churn or even magic items at all making gold spent on healing via potions when someone acts recklessly an insignificant meaningless loss. 5e doesn't require healing up from zero other than poof your full rests so getting beat to hell by recklessly notching an encounter that could have been trivial with teamwork is also no longer a penalty that would consume time spell slots or costly healing items previously.

 

[Charlaquin]

Of course, retreating in of itself is not a guarantee. You can't just say "ah, my house rule to make players more likely to want to retreat" will result in their ability to do so.

I probably brought this point up in this thread already, but I'm too lazy to check. It's something I have to say a lot, because I see a lot of "just run then!" comments on this forum.

But unless you have the ability to actually slow your enemies down, how can you run? You withdraw. They can follow you. Some enemies are faster than you. Some have ranged attacks they can use.

Most enemies are not likely to go "oh look, those guys who attacked us are running away, great, let's let them go and hope they never come back" unless they are in as bad shape as the players.

Well, yeah, a successful retreat is not a sure thing. That’s part of the push-your-luck game; if you don’t quit while you’re ahead, you can end up pushing until your luck runs out. It’s something you have to consider when going into the dungeon; how are you going to get back out if things turn south? And, it’s also something a DM should think about when planning a campaign in this style. When will monsters pursue, and when will they not? Can players distract pursuing enemies by dropping treasure or food? It’s a good idea to have systems in place for such things.

And while the DMG has chase and pursuit rules, it's not clear on when you leave combat with enemies pursuing you, and when you switch to making Con checks and the like.

This isn’t a particular problem for me. I switch systems when the dramatic question changes. If I imagine a narrator setting this up as a cliffhanger, do they say “will our heroes defeat their foes?” or do they say “can our heroes escape their pursuers alive?” The answer will determine which system should be in play.

Also the "just go somewhere and rest". There's not always a designated "safe room". I know, we're all used to parties using their Leomund's Tiny Fortress of Solitude, but that is a level 3 spell, and not every group will have that on tap.

I mean, the safe room is the inn back in town. Yes, it will probably take some doing to get there. Again this is part of the push-your-luck game.

And what if your DM uses wandering monsters or patrols you can blunder into?

They should, in my opinion. And as such, a retreating party should focus on avoiding those encounters when possible and escaping them when necessary. Retreat should mark a shift in tactics from offense to defense

Running can have just as many random factors involved as fighting, so you can't just say "oh well, the players will just run" unless you've made it very clear that, in your game, this is a safer alternative than standing and fighting.

Indeed!