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

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't have issue with the GM authority per se, but I feel that issue with 5e is that some things that I feel should be defined by the rules (at least in form of examples and suggestions) are just left for the GM to figure out. Not that I think 5.5 is any better in this regard and in some sense seems to be worse. (The usage of skills seem to be even more poorly defined than in 5.0, which certainly is an impressive achievement given how little there already was. Also most optional rules and advice on how to use them seems to be gone, so any alterations to the game are left for the GM to figure out from scratch.)

 

[dave2008]

Easier? Perhaps. "Achieves the same"? Nope. Because--again--many, many people will look at it and conclude, "Ah, yes, 1st level. The level marked with the first number. Hence, the level you should have first. So all characters should always start at 1st level, no matter what."

Yes, it is the same. Your solution has the same issue, but for the opposite group. You are just shifting the burden.

Starting at a higher level has been common thing, IME, since I started playing in the 80s. I would think it is more accepted than a new and unfamiliar approach.

 

[dave2008]

As I said, I have personally seen multiple TPKs or near-TPKs,

You do realize your experience seems to be an outlier in this forum (and from what I can see on other D&D sites I have visited). Most people complain about how easy 5e is, that it is impossible to kill characters, there is no danger, etc. I am not saying this is "true" either, but a lot of people have a very different experience than you. That may be why your not seen a lot of traction with your issues.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I must say this struck me as I have complained to my wife about this on several occasions. She has no issue with it, but I do - I have to carry all the things she can't fit in her damn pockets!

See, she's found the way out--exploit the patriarchy!

I doubt it, because the issue is more complex than like or dislike of pockets. There is a very real reason women's clothing rarely has pockets. That reason is that women tend to like thinner materials, because of the look those thin fabrics provide. For a pocket to be usable as a practical matter, it has to be thick and reinforced, which stands very much out of place on an otherwise ethereal garment.

There are thicker women's garments to buy if they want them, but so far it seems like they prefer the thinner fabric over pockets, even is they dislike not having pockets.

So...what you're saying is, people don't do things because they like absolutely 100% of everything that those things do. They may do it because it is just "what is done". They may do it because there simply aren't alternatives being offered. They may do it because they like X thing a whole hell of a lot, but strenuously dislike Y and Z...just not enough to stop seeking X. They may do it because they lack the resources to do other things. They may do it because, even though they normally wouldn't, they've been encouraged to do so by someone else who likes it more. They may....

Etc., etc., etc. Note that my point here is not "everyone does it therefore they HATE it!!!!" That would be patently foolish. My point is simply that you cannot, under any circumstances, reason exclusively from "X is done" to "X is liked". There is no necessary nor sufficient relationship between those two things. "People do X, therefore they must like X" is an invalid argument. You need to actually...y'know, investigate what people like or don't like. You need to examine why something is pursued, and find out if the pursuit arises because of the specific traits of it, or because of some other reason--and which traits cause it.

Remember: Champion was one of the lowest satisfaction subclasses (beaten only by Berserker and Beast Master, IIRC) in the lead-up to the 5.5e playtest. Yet Champion was also, consistently, one of the most-widely played subclasses, and so was Berserker! Why is that? Well, one simple reason is that the two of them were freely available, so more characters would get made with them. Another is that people like the idea of the "simple" warrior....but they may be unhappy with the specific execution. Since there's really no other options besides Champion and Berserker, people may still do that because they value the thematic expression, even if they dislike the rules associated with that thematic expression. If someone truly only enjoys the thematics of being a warrior, and truly dislikes the thematics of being a spellcaster of any kind, the choice is either to stop playing 5.0 (which, for many, wasn't an acceptable option, I'm sure, since 5e is often the literal only game in town), or to continue playing something they really don't like the rules for very much but which has the thematics they prefer.

And, again, this is not me inventing something from whole cloth. There were pictures posted, on ENWorld, of the slideshow showing the before and after satisfaction scores for the under-performing subclasses. IIRC, Berserker was legitimately in negative territory, somewhere in the mid-40s for user satisfaction, while Champion was only 5-10 points higher. This despite Champion consistently being the most popular Fighter subclass in every DDB data-drop, and Berserker being first or second among Barbarians (in one case, having a whopping 49%!) Why would players consistently play a subclass that is consistently unpopular? I've obviously given my explanation, but whatever the reason, the point stands: WotC themselves explicitly recognized a flaw in the designs of these classes, a failure to achieve intended satisfaction ratings, despite these subclasses being demonstrably played by many, many, many people.

That something is widely used is not proof positive that it is widely liked.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The new default is one that actually meshes with one of the other design goals explicitly assigned to early levels: introducing new players. New players need to be able to make mistakes without fear of failure. Dead characters are always going to feel like failure to new players. Trying to make 1st level simultaneously serve as the gentle, measured introduction for brand-new players AND the gritty hard-as-nails meat-grinder that OSR fans adore is a losing proposition specifically because it will turn away vast numbers of new players.

I think which experience it is depends almost solely on the opposition these low level characters will face. The game certainly could offer better (or any!) advice for the GMs to how to handle this. Also the option to start at higher level could be made even more clear. Given that subclasses are chosen at third level, that seems rather logical alternate starting point.

Also, if we are talking about complete newbies, one option would be to use the new optional "defeated" condition for the few first levels and only switch to the normal death rules once the characters are sturdier and the players have a better grasp of the game.

One thing regarding about fragility of low level characters which I'm not sure is necessary, is the instant death from massive damage rule. In practice it can only happen to low level characters, and could be made optional.

I feel the game has insufficient advice on how people could customise their experience. Unfortunately 5.5 has not improved on it.

As I said, I have personally seen multiple TPKs or near-TPKs, ones that resulted in failed campaigns and prospective players--players I consider friends, whom I know have an interest in character development and roleplay--leaving the game indefinitely, perhaps forever. I have personally seen this design choice result in turning away both plausibly major contributors and long-term customers, people whom I knew were interested in exploring both rules-systems and thematic concepts, people who liked thinking about characters and creating characters. (Specifically, they're friends I met through an entirely casual writing "competition" inspired by a famous webcomic; the only "prize" was getting to pick the theme for the next twice-monthly competition.)

But your experience is rather unrepresentative. This is not the sort of thing people commonly complain about here. Which is not to say it is not unfortunate if it occurs, hence my suggestions for better guidance to avoid it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, it is the same. Your solution has the same issue, but for the opposite group. You are just shifting the burden.

How? As I said before, I don't see how this "forces" anyone to do anything. This reaps the benefit of making 1st level the appropriate place to start newcomers to the hobby, without in any way harming those who want an OSR-style experience.

Like, for God's sake, this is LITERALLY the "modularity" concept D&D Next advocated, and which got such mad acclaim before the designers realized "oh no, that's a lot of work, and we wasted 2+ years just trying to figure out the basic design of Fighters" and thus quietly dropped it and hoped no one would notice.

Starting at a higher level has been common thing, IME, since I started playing in the 80s. I would think it is more accepted than a new and unfamiliar approach.

Not in my experience of 5e. I can count on one hand the number of campaigns that started at a level other than 1st, and at this point I've at least attempted to play in a couple dozen 5e campaigns over the years. (I'm fairly sure it's four, counting the D&D Next playtest game I was in, which wasn't intended to be more than a single-session thing.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think which experience it is depends almost solely on the opposition these low level characters will face. The game certainly could offer better (or any!) advice for the GMs to how to handle this. Also the option to start at higher level could be made even more clear. Given that subclasses are chosen at third level, that seems rather logical alternate starting point.

The main reason to not do this is something the designers already also said outright: They saved things like subclass etc. (for most classes in 5.0; they unified this to all in 5.5e) for 3rd level because they wanted brand-new players to not need to make so many choice-points right away. Jumping to 3rd level completely breaks this, and actually makes it worse, by forcing three whole levels' worth of choices right at the start. The whole point of delayed subclasses was specifically to make it less onerous for new players! (Well, that and to address one of the weaknesses of a la carte multiclassing, namely, the problem of front-loaded classes.)

Also, if we are talking about complete newbies, one option would be to use the new optional "defeated" condition for the few first levels and only switch to the normal death rules once the characters are sturdier and the players have a better grasp of the game.

I had not considered this. That is legitimately another option. I still think that it leaves people like Lanefan, who want a really really REALLY slow levelling experience, high and dry, doing little or nothing to serve their interests directly. I very much prefer having rules--"modules" in the Next-ian sense--that actually DO what the players want, rather than DMs having to kludge together something from guesses and unguided intuition.

Just as, for example, I would like skill challenges to be an opt-in "module", and what I call "Skirmish" rules (things which abstract "minor" combats down to just a few rolls while still having the chance of meaningful resource costs, to capture some of that early-edition "every fight with two goblins still matters" feel), and a handful of other things besides. Having an actual pile of opt-in modules to tailor the experience, rather than trying to force absolutely everyone onto one track and then merely providing "advice" for how they can very slightly nudge or awkwardly drift that single track into something kinda-sorta like what they really wanted in the first place.

One thing regarding about fragility of low level characters which I'm not sure is necessary, is the instant death from massive damage rule. In practice it can only happen to low level characters, and could be made optional.

While higher levels do make it a lot less likely, you really need to get into the high single digits or even low doubles before it's truly impossible. But, certainly, this would also help.

I feel the game has insufficient advice on how people could customise their experience. Unfortunately 5.5 has not improved on it.

I mean...if you actually included rules that helped customize that experience, I feel like that would both address the gap and significantly encourage the authors to write advice about how to customize it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's always amazing to me how different our experiences are. Of the dozens of DMs I've played under, only a couple were bad. And many of them allow starting at higher levels. Although two of them only shadowed the levels and if you started at 3rd level, you'd still need to get the amount of xp to go from 1st to 4th before making 4th level.

That said, many of them did require 1st level as the starting point.

I mean, I wouldn't say all of these DMs were bad, properly speaking. They obviously weren't good, but many of them were otherwise competent and even showed some moments of cleverness, tenacity, or insight. I just think that the rules and text (I hesitate to call much of the 5.0 DMG "advice"), coupled with some unrepresentative early experiences, led them to faulty conclusions, and that foundation would never have been able to support a long-term campaign.

 

[dave2008]

How? As I said before, I don't see how this "forces" anyone to do anything. This reaps the benefit of making 1st level the appropriate place to start newcomers to the hobby, without in any way harming those who want an OSR-style experience.

Your definition of appropriate, not necessarily what is appropriate. I can't really help you see the issues with your proposal any more than I have. To be clear, I think both approaches have issues, very similar ones in fact, the current approach works IME so I don't feel the need to change it. I understand you want to change it, and that is fine. However, your solution is not a superior one, it is just a different one, so I will just agree to disagree and move on.

Like, for God's sake, this is LITERALLY the "modularity" concept D&D Next advocated, and which got such mad acclaim before the designers realized "oh no, that's a lot of work, and we wasted 2+ years just trying to figure out the basic design of Fighters" and thus quietly dropped it and hoped no one would notice.

What? I don't see what this hadsto do with our conversation. It seems like you have some extra baggage your dealing with that my be impacting your perspective on this.

You have what you want. I want something else. That is all there is to it really. One approach isn't significantly better than the other and the differences are mostly subjective. I am fine with the way it is now, and I would honestly probably be fine with your proposal as well. It just isn't a big issue to me that I want to continue arguing about.

Not in my experience of 5e. I can count on one hand the number of campaigns that started at a level other than 1st, and at this point I've at least attempted to play in a couple dozen 5e campaigns over the years. (I'm fairly sure it's four, counting the D&D Next playtest game I was in, which wasn't intended to be more than a single-session thing.)

I feel for you. You come here and vent a lot of frustration. I hope it helps. Your experience is so vastly different from my own and pretty different to what I hear most people experience that I really don't know what to do for you. They only thing I can say is I hope you find a group/game you enjoy playing with in 2025!

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Not in my experience of 5e. I can count on one hand the number of campaigns that started at a level other than 1st, and at this point I've at least attempted to play in a couple dozen 5e campaigns over the years. (I'm fairly sure it's four, counting the D&D Next playtest game I was in, which wasn't intended to be more than a single-session thing.)

I would assume this is a topic that is discussed in the Session 0 pf the campaigns you've attempted to play.

What do the DMs and, perhaps more importantly, the other players say when the preference to start at a higher level comes up as a topic of discussion?