Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 6862273" data-attributes="member: 6688858">A few posters recently have expressed dissatisfaction with how soft the rules for death and dying are in 5e. I share this sentiment and would like to make 0HP a scarier prospect with a houserule or two, but I'm concerned with how this would impact class balance.There seems to have been a considerable effort made to balance the damage output of the classes across a full adventuring day, but far less to balance them defensively.I'm thinking in particular of the Bear Barbarian and Moon Druid. Also the Abjurer, to a lesser extent. It seems to me that they're balanced under the default assumption of plentiful and very "liquid" healing, so that PCs live and die with the party and relative sturdiness is not very important for class balance. I.e. in vanilla 5e, one PC's 70 temp HP is close to being the party's temp HP, for all intents and purposes, as healing resources are pooled together. If PCs were more likely to die at 0 HP, would these classes (and possibly other defense-oriented builds) become overpowered?I don't have these classes IMC (PCs are Warlock, Ranger, Cleric, Fighter) but I don't want them to be obviously superior choices for the next PC.For the purpose of illustration let's consider an extreme case: dead at 0 HP, and the Revivify spell is removed from the game. Is a Barbarian overpowered in this game (compared to say a Fighter)? Is a Druid overpowered compared to a Cleric?TL;DR: If I make it easier to kill characters, do hard-to-kill builds become OP?</blockquote>

Verification