D&D 5E Death Saves and Resting - A rules tweak to slay elephants and increase difficulty through all levels

[Yaarel]

Why the use of reaction? Any other save doesn't use your reaction and what happens if you've already used your reaction that round?

The reason for the immediate reaction.

The first death save determines whether a disabling injury occurred when reaching 0 hit points − the sword stab thru the gut, sotospeak.

It doesnt really make sense to see if the death blow happened several rounds after the sword thrust.



Moreover, the immediate reaction to make a death save will make players more anxious about reaching 0 hit points − as they should be − because it might inflict a wound that cannot simply be shaken away next round.



That said, your point about the reaction being possibly used already is fair enough. The intent is that the first death save happens at the same time as the lethal strike, and determines how disabling that strike was.

 

[Lanefan]

Why the use of reaction? Any other save doesn't use your reaction and what happens if you've already used your reaction that round?

Is there another term that means "do this and resolve this right now regardless of turn order or anything else that might be happening at the moment"? If yes, maybe use that term instead of 'reaction'.

At some point we just need to acknowledge that the risk of 'breaking' the game is moot. D&D isn't a pane of glass, it's a pile of sand.

Maybe, but it can still be broken: kick that pile of sand around long enough and you don't have a pile of sand any more...

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

Maybe, but it can still be broken

Once you've made it into a lovely sand-castle, for instance.

kick that pile of sand around long enough and...

..you'll be freestyle RPing.
But a broom'd be quicker, and a vacuum more thorough. Sand just gets everywhere.

 

[Blue]

The simplest way to avoid or break death spirals is to rest until you're fully recovered. If there's a time crunch to the mission then there's some hard choices to make...odds of survival vs. odds of success. I like this.

Say one character, the tank, has two mortal wounds and three levels of exhaustion. No one else has Mortal Wounds because the tank was doing their job well. The healer was doing a decent job as well but hey, crits happen and sometimes you'll drop. The party as a whole wants to push on, the tank does not. Would you support as the most enjoyable the party splitting and the player of the tank sitting out, or if the tank ends up dying soon after and the player is annoyed because he wasn't allowed to split off and rest? Which brings more fun to the table?

If you really want the party to rest on a 7 day cycle, there are DMG variant to change short rests to overnight and long rest to 7 days. This way the whole party has the same cycle. We should not expect all roles of characters to get hit to zero and start picking up Mortal Wounds at the same frequency, so this inherently sets some characters of different cycles than others.

If a healer is needed and nobody wants to play it (rarely a problem IME) then the DM can always chuck an NPC healer into the party - if the PCs are wise enough to go out and recruit one.

This seems like you are making a rule that requires a healer, you are willing to adjust the narrative to insert an extra person in the adventuring party so there will be a healer ... and the rule has very little impact if there is a healer.

It sounds like a rule made to be intentionally worked around so it will have no real mechanical effect, but will have a narrative effect of requiring a PC or NPC healer in every party. Wouldn't it just be more direct to make a house rule requiring a healer instead? If that sounds a little odd, consider that's what you just said the main result of the reduced HD recovery rule will be.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This seems like you are making a rule that requires a healer, you are willing to adjust the narrative to insert an extra person in the adventuring party so there will be a healer ... and the rule has very little impact if there is a healer.

It sounds like a rule made to be intentionally worked around so it will have no real mechanical effect, but will have a narrative effect of requiring a PC or NPC healer in every party. Wouldn't it just be more direct to make a house rule requiring a healer instead? If that sounds a little odd, consider that's what you just said the main result of the reduced HD recovery rule will be.

The rules have always made having a healer a /really/ good idea, even in 4e, when every class had bunches of 'healing surges' and could Second Wind, a 'leader' was prettymuch assumed. 5e's no different, and it presents 4 classes that make pretty good healers.
The kinds of variants that reduce/penalize everyman healing, doing away with overnight healing, reducing HD, putting them on an even slower recovery schedule (they're already the slowest), just make the need that much clearer. But, mainly, they're evocative of the classic game, when rest & time were very slow modes of healing and getting knocked below 0 carried a mandatory week-long recuperation.

 

[Lanefan]

Say one character, the tank, has two mortal wounds and three levels of exhaustion. No one else has Mortal Wounds because the tank was doing their job well. The healer was doing a decent job as well but hey, crits happen and sometimes you'll drop. The party as a whole wants to push on, the tank does not. Would you support as the most enjoyable the party splitting and the player of the tank sitting out, or if the tank ends up dying soon after and the player is annoyed because he wasn't allowed to split off and rest? Which brings more fun to the table?

You - maybe intentionally - left off option C: that the party, despite its desire to push on, stays put and waits for the tank to recover.

This choice, or versions of it, comes up in our games constantly...as it should. Do we wait for the incurable(s) to recover, or do we push on and try to shield them as best we can? Sometimes the party carries on (and sometimes the incurables die due to this), sometimes they wait.

This seems like you are making a rule that requires a healer, you are willing to adjust the narrative to insert an extra person in the adventuring party so there will be a healer ... and the rule has very little impact if there is a healer.

And a great impact if they don't have one, or if it's the healer who dies. (fun fact: this very thing is probably about to happen in my own game - lacking a healer, they recruited an NPC before leaving town - first major engagement in the field and when the session ended mid-combat said healer is isolated, prone, at 5 h.p., and one-on-one against a hill giant that will very likely finish her off next round unless someone can intervene)

Lan-"and if they lose this healer, good luck recruiting another one from the same town!"-efan

 

[OB1]

Apologies for the slight necro of my own thread, but ideas from that other thread on dying got me thinking of two more changes, and I'd like to get some opinions.

1. Falling - In addition to the regular rules on falling, when you fall from a distance of more than 10 feet, make 1 death save for every additional 10 feet you fall to a maximum of 10 saves. Monks with slow fall may add 5 feet per monk level to the initial fall distance buffer and have a maximum of 2 saves.

2. 0 HP - Instead of being Unconscious, you are Incapacitated and Prone. Both conditions end when you regain at least 1 HP. If an enemy hits you with an attack while at 0HP, make a Death Saving throw as normal (DC 10 or the damage of the attack, whichever is higher). If you wish to push yourself while in this state, you may make a Con ability check with the following possible results.

1-7 - You gain a Mortal Wound and become Unconscious.
8-15 - No change
16-20 - You can move at full speed this turn
21+ - You can move full speed and take a single action (as per haste) this turn.


The first ruling is one that, I think, brings a bit more realism to taking a fall, but may need to be tweaked.

The second is meant to better model what I think it means to be out of HP. That you are exhausted and your guard is down, but not knocked out, and also that you won't keep risking death unless either you try to push your limits or an enemy pushes them for you.

Thoughts?