D&D 5E Dying House Rule

[CapnZapp]

I generally use Savage Worlds' "Heroes never die" rule, where basically players can't really get killed by anyone that's not actually important. They might get left for dead, or captured, or brought back by a kind old man or something, but unless it's an actual villain, they won't die.

I do make exceptions when it comes to stupid decisions, however. If the 5th level party decides to charge into the Ancient Red Dragon lair because "heroes never die," then we'll be rolling new characters soon enough.

Also, I love 2e, so this is obviously not an attempt at emulating that level of lethality or anything. I simply value a good story more than constant life and death struggles these days.

At the first few levels, D&D has always been brutally lethal.

In 5E that feeling evaporates quickly around level 5 or so. Then I don't need to cushion the heroes - the rule system does plenty of that by itself, thankyouverymuch. From level 7 onwards, it's really impossible to keep a PC dead, unless we're talking complete wipe (TPK). And that I never came close to pulling off in the entirety of OotA.

 

[CapnZapp]

Except it doesn't. You already don't want to fall unconscious, and when you do, it's not typically your fault. It's usually random chance with the occasional contribution of other character's self-interest or DM miscommunication thrown in.

Yes, I find the very idea of "lets make 0 hp a big deal" ignores the basic truth that D&D is not built around the idea that 0 hp should be a big deal.

(I know this is the second time I said something like this)

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yes, I find the very idea of "lets make 0 hp a big deal" ignores the basic truth that D&D is not built around the idea that 0 hp should be a big deal.

(I know this is the second time I said something like this)

The basic truth about 0 hp depends on which era you started playing in. The fact that recent editions have rendered it not so big a deal doesn't change the truth historically speaking.

Each group should decide how big a deal they want 0 hp to be. Some folks just like for there to be more consequences for combat engagement than others.

 

[Huntsman57]

At the first few levels, D&D has always been brutally lethal.

In 5E that feeling evaporates quickly around level 5 or so. Then I don't need to cushion the heroes - the rule system does plenty of that by itself, thankyouverymuch. From level 7 onwards, it's really impossible to keep a PC dead, unless we're talking complete wipe (TPK). And that I never came close to pulling off in the entirety of OotA.

I've never found wipes to be difficult, particularly in 5E. However a wipe is clearly less than desirable. I have run games that ended in a wipe, but they weren't common. As a DM, the old adage "scare don't kill" is a philosophy that I apply mostly to TPKs. However, if the PCs make egregious errors, or simply get tremendously unlucky, then it can most certainly happen. It just isn't something that the players or the DM really want to see.

Individual deaths are the hard part in 5E, and while not desirable, they do remind us that there are consequences to the dangerous profession of the adventurer, and death can claim you in an instant if you aren't careful. The PCs are reminded that they have skin in the game and that their actions matter. 5E combat (as written, not as in my game) is exasperating. I rather enjoy combat but I'm left feeling "is this over yet?" at each combat not because of the combat system itself, because with all the special class abilities, bonus actions, and reactions 5E is arguably the most interesting D&D combat system to date, but because I never really feel like my character is truly at risk unless the entire team is facing a wipe (or a honey badger is mindlessly gnawing on my downed characters face).

The "wipe or everyone lives" aspect of most 5E encounters is also quite inorganic. IRL can that happen to a group of people? Sure, but more often than not people die, and others in that group survive them to carry on. That is the more likely scenario by far. It just feels wrong in 5E's default rules.

 

[Lanliss]

I've never found wipes to be difficult, particularly in 5E. However a wipe is clearly less than desirable. I have run games that ended in a wipe, but they weren't common. As a DM, the old adage "scare don't kill" is a philosophy that I apply mostly to TPKs. However, if the PCs make egregious errors, or simply get tremendously unlucky, then it can most certainly happen. It just isn't something that the players or the DM really want to see.

Individual deaths are the hard part in 5E, and while not desirable, they do remind us that there are consequences to the dangerous profession of the adventurer, and death can claim you in an instant if you aren't careful. The PCs are reminded that they have skin in the game and that their actions matter. 5E combat (as written, not as in my game) is exasperating. I rather enjoy combat but I'm left feeling "is this over yet?" at each combat not because of the combat system itself, because with all the special class abilities, bonus actions, and reactions 5E is arguably the most interesting D&D combat system to date, but because I never really feel like my character is truly at risk unless the entire team is facing a wipe (or a honey badger is mindlessly gnawing on my downed characters face).

The "wipe or everyone lives" aspect of most 5E encounters is also quite inorganic. IRL can that happen to a group of people? Sure, but more often than not people die, and others in that group survive them to carry on. That is the more likely scenario by far. It just feels wrong in 5E's default rules.

Have you considered playing a game without any revival spells? Just the idea that Death is permanent might put some fear into the game. Just a few sessions ago in a game I am playing on Roll20, I was eaten by a Froghemoth and died, as was my PC. Luckily, the party mystic was able to revive us both without even a second thought because of how cheap it was.

 

[Huntsman57]

Have you considered playing a game without any revival spells? Just the idea that Death is permanent might put some fear into the game. Just a few sessions ago in a game I am playing on Roll20, I was eaten by a Froghemoth and died, as was my PC. Luckily, the party mystic was able to revive us both without even a second thought because of how cheap it was.

I don't have any issue with rez being obtainable actually. My longest running campaign that I ran from '89 through to the mid 90's with mostly the same characters was memorable largely because the players had grown so attached to their characters and all the trials they went through. Of course they were trials because they were very difficult and people died.

Does that mean it should be "cheap" to rez a character? No, but to riff off my prior stolen statement "create the possibility of permakill, but generally don't permakill." If a player truly wants his character back, it should be possible, at least later in the game. I don't even agree with the aspect of 2E where there were permanent losses and setbacks. The character should eventually be able to get to a state where they're "good as new." Having said that, there should be lasting effects with the character taking quite awhile to get back to 100%. If there's not a party member with rez available it should be quite difficult to obtain, possibly involving a quest. In every case, it should be extremely expensive, setting the party back financially.

Part of the art of DMing is (and shhh don't share this with your players) creating the illusion of a threat that is greater than the reality of that threat. The risk of a wipe should sometimes seem all too real, but should very rarely materialize. The risk of individual death should be almost omni-present in dangerous situations, but death should only occasionally actually happen. The risk of perma-death should be a very real concern for the player, but in most cases, given the appropriate time, money, and effort put forth, should omit the "perma" even if there are lingering effects for some time.

5E's RAW death mechanics remove the teeth from that threat. The DM attempts to weave the illusion of the risk of perma-death for the individual character, but in many cases, any player familiar with the rules can see straight through it.

 

[Lanliss]

I don't have any issue with rez being obtainable actually. My longest running campaign that I ran from '89 through to the mid 90's with mostly the same characters was memorable largely because the players had grown so attached to their characters and all the trials they went through. Of course they were trials because they were very difficult and people died.

Does that mean it should be "cheap" to rez a character? No, but to riff off my prior stolen statement "create the risk of permakill, but don't permakill." If a player truly wants his character back, it should be possible, at least later in the game. I don't even agree with the aspect of 2E where there were permanent losses and setbacks. The character should eventually be able to get to a state where they're "good as new." Having said that, there should be lasting effects with the character taking quite awhile to get back to 100%. If there's not a party member with rez available it should be quite difficult to obtain, possibly involving a quest. In every case, it should be extremely expensive, setting the party back financially.

I agree that a rez should be possible, but as a ritual quest sort of thing, IMO. Revivify being a simple 3rd level spell really makes Death seem trivial. I also don't think that a simple Financial set back really puts Death into perspective. Sure, these are Heroes, and should be Heroic, but just being revived at all means they are practically blessed by the gods, so I think they can pay more than a simple fee. If I didn't already have a system in place that I wanted to test, I would probably think about permanently removing the spell slot used for a revival, at least until a level is gained. This would mean that getting an NPC to rez your character would not just be expensive, but INSANELY expensive.

Mathew Mercer has a ritual that takes place whenever anyone casts a revival spell, a 1 person ritual for Revivify but 3 people for higher level resurrections, and people helping in the ritual make rolls based on what they are applying to call back their friend. Each success or failure alters the Final DC, which Mercer rolls against to see if the Revival succeeds. He also has a rule that each time a character dies, the DC goes up by 1, making death progressively more likely to be permanent.

I didn't go quite that far, and am just attaching a cost to revival in my world, a point system where a PC who is revived multiple times is faced with worse and worse permanent effects. A 1dx of damage after a long rest away from a fire, eventually even if they do sleep near a fire. Disadvantage on saves vs. Cold effects, and also eventual Vulnerability to cold, though on the level they become vulnerable they also get Advantage on saves vs. Fire spells, and later Fire resistance. Eventually, a Cold spell will instantly kill them, but they will be immune to Fire damage. That is long term though, maybe after 20 revivals.

Basically all of this amounts to my opinion, that simply having people die easily in your game is not enough to make Death important. There needs to be a significant cost, from a reasonable scaling DC for revival to a ridiculous loss of a spell slot, the players need to feel the pain when they let someone die on their watch. All IMO of course.

 

[epithet]

As I understand it, the root of the issue is that some folks think that dying and death in 5e lack sufficient gravity. I am assuming the real crux of the problem is that players don't feel threatened, and DMs don't feel as though their BBEG is being taken seriously. It doesn't seem to me that bolting on an AD&D or 2e death mechanic is a particularly elegant solution, though. If you're trying to recapture the feel of old-school D&D, you might be better served by playing a retro clone like Swords & Wizardry.

If what you really want is to make players more interested in avoiding dying and/or death in 5e, then you're better off (I think) to use 5e systems and optional rules. For example, page 272 of the DMG has optional rules for lingering injuries. If every character who is reduced to 0 without becoming immediately stable (eg because the attacker chose to knock unconscious rather than kill) is required to roll on that table, those players will definitely be trying to avoid letting their characters drop. It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

If revivify seems like it's too much like the magic defibrillator in movies and tv shows that drives real-world medical pros (like my wife) to distraction, then add a level of exhaustion. Want more? Add another level of exhaustion to the caster. Exhaustion is a great resource in 5e, and an exhaustion tax makes pretty much anything much more serious.

If you're really keen to get gritty with 5e, the slow natural healing rule (DMG page 267) will go a very long way toward capturing the old-school feel. No, it isn't a point per day like AD&D, but it forces a break in the action to rest and recover. If your players have begun to think of hit points as a scarce resource instead of "use it or lose it" between long rests, even a relatively trivial random encounter will be taken seriously as the party tries to minimize the hit dice needed to get back to full. Healer feats and bardic songs of rest suddenly become highly valued abilities.

Look, I'm the last guy who's gonna discourage home-brewing an aftermarket improvement to your game. I've never seriously considered Adventurer's League games because, at least in part, of the forced strict adherence to a limited subset of the D&D rules. Still, before you go trying to bolt panels of an older game onto the chassis of the new one, try looking at the existing optional rules and the mechanics built into 5e first.

Also, in this particular instance, keep in mind that there is a lot of territory between "I was just dead 6 seconds ago, but I'm totally fine now. Tallyho!" and rolling a new character. While the possibility of losing a character makes a narrow survival more exhilarating, actually losing a character legitimately sucks in almost every occasion. (The one exception is if your character knowingly risks death to achieve his or her primary motivating goal, and brings the character's story to a satisfying conclusion with an epic, if pyrrhic, victory.) No one will appreciate their character's permanent death to some routine dungeon encounter, but they will remember having to hobble back to the priest for an expensive high-level spell to cure their lingering wound, and they might play the hell out of the intimidating scar. A character who can't afford a regeneration spell might actually take pride in the exotic glass eye that they eventually have enchanted. There is a reason that the march of editions has taken us farther and farther from "Roll a d20... ok, you're dead. Go roll a new character."

 

[ad_hoc]

I like the tension that death saves adds to the game. It is thrilling to hope for a 20 in a tense combat.

The way we do death saving throws:

Roll when you hit 0. Failed death saves do not reset until a long rest.

That is all we need for dramatic tension around PC death. Also keep in mind that monsters are free to attack PCs at 0 and a crit causes 2 failed death saves.

 

[epithet]

... I would probably think about permanently removing the spell slot used for a revival, at least until a level is gained. This would mean that getting an NPC to rez your character would not just be expensive, but INSANELY expensive.

...

I didn't go quite that far, and am just attaching a cost to revival in my world, a point system where a PC who is revived multiple times is faced with worse and worse permanent effects. A 1dx of damage after a long rest away from a fire, eventually even if they do sleep near a fire. Disadvantage on saves vs. Cold effects, and also eventual Vulnerability to cold, though on the level they become vulnerable they also get Advantage on saves vs. Fire spells, and later Fire resistance. Eventually, a Cold spell will instantly kill them, but they will be immune to Fire damage. That is long term though, maybe after 20 revivals.

...

First, and this is just my opinion, but taking away a spell slot is nuts. If you're gonna screw someone over a rez, at least make it the dead schmuck and not the priest.

Second, though, your revival cost point system is an interesting idea. I think I would tend to make it more akin to becoming undead, so vulnerability to radiant damage and resistance to necrotic, susceptibility to turning and undead control spells, etc. If your campaign has a prohibition on characters of evil alignment, then it could be very effective to say that after coming back 12 times you can't have a good alignment, and after 18 you are evil (and an NPC.) Even if your actions are virtuous, the stain is upon your soul. I would suggest, however, that there has to be some way to undo the damage and reset your revival points. It should be epic, probably extra-planar, and could even be a big secret at first. You need to know what it is, though, and be ready for players to make the redemption of their rez-tainted souls a big freakin' deal.