D&D General How Often Should a PC Die in D&D 5e?

[Crimson Longinus]

I personally would say a run of bad luck (to include good rolls on the DM's part) and/or a sequence of bad (or at least dubious) decisions. Just to sort of separate that from one bad roll or choice being enough. This seems at least consistent with the sentiment you're pointing to.

Yeah. I don't really miss the old school save-or-die effects or having to be constantly paranoid due insakill traps. That to me is not a fun sort of a challenge. I think there should be several steps on the road to the defeat, so that they players have genuine chance to correct the course before it is too late.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah. I don't really miss the old school save-or-die effects or having to be constantly paranoid due insakill traps. That to me is not a fun sort of a challenge. I think there should be several steps on the road to the defeat, so that they players have genuine chance to correct the course before it is too late.

While in general I think the deadliness of a game has always been up to the group, I will also say that if the DM didn't take steps to change things older versions of D&D led to more accidentally deadly games. It can still happen in 5E, but it's far less likely to have "Oops you're dead" moments. Back in ye olden' days we just had house rules to minimize it or ignored the "save or die" options.

 

[Imaro]

I think playstyle determines the nature of "skilled play" regardless of edition -- if relevant at all.

I think rules do...

 

[ezo]

Wait shouldn't bad luck and/or very poor decisions be what causes PC death?

Most of the time, certainly. But when you have the game rigged in the favor the PCs, those ARE the only things that will result in a PC death.

In AD&D, with save or die effects for example, a single bad roll could kill your PC in the first round of an encounter against a creature appropriate for your level. Now, when people say "bad luck" IME they mean a series of bad rolls, over the course of multiple rounds--the whole "Man, nothing is going my way!" sort of day.

And "very poor decisions" in 5E are harder to make IME than in AD&D. The entire mind-set has changed as well. Before you had to be careful to keep your PC alive, now you have to be truly reckless to have your PC die.

That at least seems to be the majority sentiment in this thread.

That is because that is this is a 5E forum. So even though you tagged this as D&D General, you didn't put it in the older / other editions forum. What sort of responses where you expecting to get?

You won't find many "this challenge is too much for you" encounters in 5E, where running or surrender were your best hope and only insane luck would see you through the battle alive if you chose to fight.

By its very definition, a deadly encounter might result in a PC death, but that comes with the unwritten extras that include resource depletion over prior encounters. It would be an interesting experiment in 5E to do nothing but deadly encounters, but allow PCs FULL LONG RESTS between every encounter. I doubt, again without repeated bad rolls or poor / wasteful feature use you would see many PCs dying after the first couple levels... even if then.

I think playing newer editions of D&D vs older requires different types of skilled play.

Your perrogative, of course. I think older D&D required more cautious and thoughtful play to be successful. 5E (and probably as far back as 3E really) doesn't require those. At most, it requires you remember how to use the features you have well--if you remember you have them at all.

I once played a Battle Master Fighter from level 1 to level 6 and never, not once used a single battle master maneuver. Frankly, I never needed to initially, and eventually never bothered thinking of them at all. Could my PC have been even more effective at defeating enemies if I had? Certainly! But I didn't need to--it was overkill and would have made the game too easy for my enjoyment.

Personally, I will get rid of or nerf 90% of the features in the game, and not likely see increased PC death unless I ramped up the encounter difficulty from 2014 design.

An older player can join a 5E game and play "older style" and have their PC likely be fine. A newer player joining an AD&D game and playing "newer style" will most likely quickly see their PC die.

 

[PvtTommyAtkins]

Let me say these answers have been interesting and insightful. They also are making me wonder... what exactly is meant when people claim 5e isn't lethal enough or is easy mode...

Let me say these answers have been interesting and insightful. They also are making me wonder... what exactly is meant when people claim 5e isn't lethal enough or is easy mode...

I've found that 3rd ed - 5th ed are very concerned with game balance. Both between players as well as encounters. DMG advice falls in line with that where there is a resource depletion but nothing that is a real threat. I've heard many people describe 5e as "combat as a sport" you might get hurt, but no one expects to die. Compared with "hard" systems where players need to think creatively to maximize advantage and ideally win the combat (or avoid it) before any dice are rolled.

 

[ezo]

I think there should be several steps on the road to the defeat, so that they players have genuine chance to correct the course before it is too late.

When I DMed AD&D, and a save or die effect might come up, I would drop hints leading up to the encounter that such an effect was on the horizon. The players had to find a way to mitigate it and even then went in realizing it could still hapen--and they might be rolling a save or die d20. That is what made it exciting: knowing the risk as there, trying to thwart it, and the luck of the die if all your plans failed and you had to roll.

In 5E, "roll at the end of your turn" repeatedly. Most of time, you have to fail three rolls before you face the worst effect. Many combat don't even last three rounds and by then often the effect was ended anyway.

 

[Imaro]

I've found that 3rd ed - 5th ed are very concerned with game balance. Both between players as well as encounters. DMG advice falls in line with that where there is a resource depletion but nothing that is a real threat. I've heard many people describe 5e as "combat as a sport" you might get hurt, but no one expects to die. Compared with "hard" systems where players need to think creatively to maximize advantage and ideally win the combat (or avoid it) before any dice are rolled.

Combat as sport doesn't mean no one expects to die... it means there is a fair (though not equal) chance for either side to win an encounter... mainly because there are encounter guidelines. On the other hand when there are no guidelines... you don't have that option. The thing is a game that doesn't use encounter guidelines can be played with either set of rules.

 

[MGibster]

Death should come as often as the dice will it.

 

[Maxperson]

Or you don't grasp the system as well... or they work together better... or etc. Just because it takes more for you to challenge the characters doesn't necessarily mean the lethality of the system is less.

I grasp it just fine. When I have to throw extra powerful monsters or powerful monsters at much lower levels to challenge them, it's an easier game. The 5e balance around resource attrition and high hit points makes it harder to threaten PC lives with encounters that would have been a challenge in earlier editions.

 

[Maxperson]

Death should come as often as the dice will it.

If your dice are willing your characters to die, perhaps it's time to get new dice..............................or perform an exorcism.