D&D 5E D&D 5e death and consequences?

[Mouseferatu]

All new characters enter the game at level one, so if that is preferable to a 6th level character that is down one point of CON then go right ahead.

In your games, perhaps, but not in any campaign I've been in or played in for the past 20+ years. And to be entirely honest, I'd walk away from a table that played that way. Nothing innately "wrong" with it, but not my cup of meat.

A penalty for a dying character does ONE important thing. It teaches the important lesson that stupid decisions that lead to character death have consequences that impact the game as it continues. This is a MUST if you want the stupid decision quantity in your game to decrease.

I find that the stupid decision quantity in my game decreases, and the fear of death increases, because people make a point of trying to actually make decisions in-character.

This is probably sounding more dismissive than I mean it to; by all and any means, play how you like. But I, personally, have no interest in playing with a group that has to be "taught a lesson" by the rules.

 

[Eejit]

Druid's Reincarnate is much more fun. There are actual consequences to using the spell, and I prefer the concept of requiring rare oils and ungents than flawless diamonds.

 

[drjones]

You can say that death is too easy to recover from (at higher levels, when starting out or as a commoner you pretty much always stay dead) but that is balanced against how often PCs die. Once players have resources to deal with death it is much less of a buzzkill to be attacking downed characters to finish them off, having save or die abilities used, having traps full of magma and such that can obliterate a character if they mess up. Sure, it 'only' costs money and time to haul the corpse back to the big city to get raised but when you are doing that three times a day you will start to feel A. bankrupt and B. like maybe you should be more careful.

Oh and just because you can afford to be raised from the dead does not mean you can grow back the arm that was eaten or replace the eye that was shot out without considerable further effort so you might be back on your feet but you will bear a reminder of the death that might have mechanical effects for quite a while.

 

[drjones]

This is probably sounding more dismissive than I mean it to; by all and any means, play how you like. But I, personally, have no interest in playing with a group that has to be "taught a lesson" by the rules.

Everyone must learn the most important lesson of all: Don't let the DM roll a crit when you are at 1HP and never, ever be unlucky with saving throws. Only fools and bad players who deserve a spanking ever have the gall to be unlucky!

 

[Eric V]

In fact, one could base a whole campaign on the trade of blood diamonds, one in which adventurers have to buy (or steal) the precious resource from bloodthirsty warlords who control the local mines. Imagine what would happen if the church, in order to raise the King from the dead, had to buy a diamond from Hobgoblin guerrilleros.

This is such a great idea. Consider it stolen!

 

[ExploderWizard]

In your games, perhaps, but not in any campaign I've been in or played in for the past 20+ years. And to be entirely honest, I'd walk away from a table that played that way. Nothing innately "wrong" with it, but not my cup of meat.



I find that the stupid decision quantity in my game decreases, and the fear of death increases, because people make a point of trying to actually make decisions in-character.

This is probably sounding more dismissive than I mean it to; by all and any means, play how you like. But I, personally, have no interest in playing with a group that has to be "taught a lesson" by the rules.

I am speaking largely of open table games like the one I am running at the FLGS. When your player base is a box of chocolates and players may end up doing the dumbest things just for the lulz there is choice to be made:

- lets those decisions be meaningless and consequence free which will discourage more serious players from wanting to play.

- ensure that such decisions impact play and either convince the players to make better decisions or to find another game.

I enjoy the open table game because it allows me to meet and game with folks that I might not otherwise have met. Sometimes this doesn't work out so well, but the opportunity to make new friends is worth the risk.

I have regular groups that I game with that don't require such polices in order to make intelligent decisions.

 

[TwoSix]

I am speaking largely of open table games like the one I am running at the FLGS. When your player base is a box of chocolates and players may end up doing the dumbest things just for the lulz there is choice to be made:

Weird, I thought going for the lulz was one of the points of playing!

 

[Gargoyle]

I'm running a Birthright campaign, and in the original rules I noticed that spells like raise dead and resurrection were "discouraged". The setting features rules for letting PC's be regents of domains, rulers of kingdoms, and it made sense in that when a ruler is killed, bringing them back is anticlimactic, and troublesome for certain types of adventures. For my 5e conversion, I just ruled that spells that bring people back from the dead do not exist. My rule for new characters is they start at 1st level, no matter what the party is at; as they will quickly catch up. I'm fairly generous with magic items and gold, but definitely not monty haul. I don't fudge die rolls. I state all of this to give people an idea of context. I'm not a killer DM, despite all of this, PC death is rare, even so far in 5e.

My thinking:
- At low levels it doesn't matter. You're going to stay dead if you die in most campaigns anyway, unless the DM is nice and has a high level NPC do you a favor, and most players are not so attached to lower level characters anyway.
- At higher levels, it will change the game. Players are forced to be more conservative. As DM, I will be forced to be more careful with adventure design and not cause an unfair TPK.
- I am less likely to use save or die effects against them. I don't want a single bad die roll to kill them too arbitrarily. It could happen regardless. And I will use them sometimes.

My players are fine with all of this, but it does add a level of dramatic tension to the game, and curbs their tendency to charge in and try to kill everything. That's what I'm going for, so I'm happy with it. When a PC will die, it will mean something, and I try to design every difficult encounter with some aspect of heroism involved so that if they do perish, it will be a fitting end, and not something like a random wandering monster that cannot be escaped or negotiated with.

Here is the thing: At higher levels, when they do have a lot invested in their characters, I can change my mind. It's easy to bring raise dead spells back if I want. I create an adventure for them that enables the casting of such spells; perhaps an important NPC dies and they find a way to open the portals to the realm of the dead, and those spells become available in the campaign. Or a PC dies and they travel to the realm of the dead itself to retrieve their soul. It's easy to bring that stuff back. It's hard to get rid of it once you add it.

That's just my thinking. I don't see anything wrong with adding some additional cost or side effect to these spells if that's the way you want to handle it, or using the RAW, but I do think all DM's should think about it and decide what to do before starting their campaigns.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Weird, I thought going for the lulz was one of the points of playing!

It can be! But what if your idea of a laugh is getting the whole party killed? If everyone is on board for a meat grinder that's awesome. If there is a player who happens to be the only one who doesn't seem interested in reaching level 2 there may be issues.

 

[TwoSix]

It can be! But what if your idea of a laugh is getting the whole party killed? If everyone is on board for a meat grinder that's awesome. If there is a player who happens to be the only one who doesn't seem interested in reaching level 2 there may be issues.

There's no real solution I know of for a mixed table where some people just want to be weird and others are more serious. Somebody will end up unhappy either way, so majority rules seems the wisest course.