D&D 5E How do you kill a 10th level character?

[Olgar Shiverstone]

In terms of play style, i agree that there is no one style.

You'd think so, but I'm not entirely sure.

You see, I accidentally bumped the d20 from my Starter Set and it rolled into our fireplace. I was quick to grab tongs and pull it out, though oddly it was barely warm. Strangely, though, I discovered faint glyphs besides the numbers on the die. The runes were Draconic, but the language was Abyssal, which I shall not utter here. Translated, though, the runes said:

"One style to rule them all, one style to find them;
One style to bring them all, and to this edition bind them."

It was spooky, and I've since kept that d20 sequestered lest it contaminate the others. Though I do find myself on occasion taking it out to look at -- it is quite attractive, and precious to me.

 

[Mondas711]

It depends on who made those characters, I would put gold on a character I optimize at 10th level vs those 3 other characters if they are made by the roleplay first crowd that wants to make elf fighters with 14 strength scores using longswords, or the I will take linguistic, skilled, and keen mind because my paladin is worldly type characters.

I mean sometimes people talk about making almost three stooges level inept adventurers, just saying Drizzt vs Larry, Moe, and Curly in a pit Drizzt is the one who backflips out leaving a pile of corpses behind.

I will be making an elf fighter that uses a longsword. The only thing is, by level 10 he will have a 20 strength.

 

[Anthony Terry]

This thread has been a rather strange read, for starters, some one asks the question "in 5th edition a 10th level character seems hard to kill" a statement that i Personally do agree compared with most systems, including their own previous 4 editions 5th discousarges PC death more but still leaves the obvious room for change, but the concept of death saves etc is the most anti-death yet imo what leaves me confused is a large amount of peoples answers to this being house rules and non BTB items such as used by tucks infamous kobolds but surely if your using these things one is not truly playing 5th edition DND?

I know the purpose of a forum is discussion but have any of you even bothered to discuss what he actually asked? Or too readily put forward your opinions on a loosely fitting subject of combat difficulty being more to do with a DM than system followed by arguing whos imaginary rulings for unconscious player characters is superior or in the jesters case he seems to just be arguing whos arguing more politely, which is rather sad.

I apologise to does who actually did answer helpfully but i can tell you now this thread was almost useless to me and probably to anyone else who was interested in the topic as id say about 70% of this thread was unrelated and without being rude quite uninteresting.

further apologies if the actual poster of the thread didn't feel the same and i too am just further de-railing the thread but honestly why does every topic on this dam forum lately have to some how become what is the equivalent of an edition war, how hard can it be to discuss the aspects of a system without putting your personal bias and techniques forward? Just discuss the merit of whats there. If suggestions of how to improve said system are then asked for, THEN PROVIDE THEM? Too many people in this world seem to have it in their head that their ideas are brilliant and clearly wished to be heard by all.

Edit Note - saw some obvious spelling errors and the irony of my own post was killing me, so to ensure i contribute positivity a easy way to kill high level characters that are accounted for in core rule books and the advice therein (and therefore could actually be counted when discussing the natural bias of 5th towards character death)

some one mentioned it briefly above but magic missile. The tactic of any intelligent wizard with access to this spell should be to cast it on any unconscious enemies when ever possible. at 10th level you have access to 5 missiles if it still works the same. Thats 2 unconscious charecters dead, with 1 first level spell. In answer to the issue of charecters never dieing from one attack, thats been slowly occuring since 3rd edition and comes from the fact since WOTC (IMO) took over D&D it has been seen more as a computer game than a life simulator or fantasy RPG and does as others have said require some effort from the DM to not cause some disjunction with reality. E.g the 10th level human being unconscious on the floor, getting stabbed in the neck, and not just being dead. I REPEAT HOW EVER AN ANSWER TO THE ABOVE POSTERS QUESTIONS IS NOT TO TELL HIM TO IGNORE 5TH EDITION AND JUST SAY THE CHARECTER IS DEAD BECAUSE THEN BY YOUR VERY OWN DEFINITION HE IS NOT PLAYING 5TH EDITION, HE IS PLAYING YOUR VERSION OF IT. THIS MAY BE AS EQUALLY VALUABLE, HELPFUL IN SOME CASES BUT ITS NOT WHAT WAS ING ASKED FOR

 

[Nebulous]

Shadows, they do 1d4 strength damage per hit and if you drop to zero strength you die and become a new shadow. Very scary monsters indeed.

Right, that's it. Lord. I think a pack of those would send just about any hero running for the hills.

 

[Anthony Terry]

Right, that's it. Lord. I think a pack of those would send just about any hero running for the hills.

Doubt it. In a 3.5 game playing the 3.5 edition of ravenloft due to a particular room therein i managed to turn one shadow i had turned into 400. BTB ruling is that as i made sure my shadow made them all, he was in charge of all of them, and i was in charge of him... you get the picture. It didnt take much for my DM to deal with them, On average a cleric of equivalent level to my self (10-12 cant quite remember) could cast turn undead and near on outright kill i think about 6-8 of them.

I was most disappointed in 5th as well to see them remove their only real ability of note and the whole point of the monster, which was their ability to move in and out of walls at free. The fact now that they must end their turn in an area which leaves them vulnerable to attack makes them allot less scary, that combined with their low HD and turning viability makes them no way at all scary to the average 10th level party unless in the obscene numbers i suggest above as theyd be dead long before they ever got the jump on them enough 9/10

 

[the Jester]

This thread has been a rather strange read, for starters, some one asks the question "in 5th edition a 10th level character seems hard to kill" a statement that i Personally do agree compared with most systems, including their own previous 4 editions 5th discousarges PC death more but still leaves the obvious room for change, but the concept of death saves etc is the most anti-death yet imo what leaves me confused is a large amount of peoples answers to this being house rules and non BTB items such as used by tucks infamous kobolds but surely if your using these things one is not truly playing 5th edition DND?

Given that 5e is explicitly designed to be tweaked and house ruled, I'd disagree here. You make the assertion that 5e isn't 5e if you aren't playing it 100% as-is, but notice how often the books encourage the DM to change or tweak the game.

I know the purpose of a forum is discussion but have any of you even bothered to discuss what he actually asked? Or too readily put forward your opinions on a loosely fitting subject of combat difficulty being more to do with a DM than system followed by arguing whos imaginary rulings for unconscious player characters is superior or in the jesters case he seems to just be arguing whos arguing more politely, which is rather sad.

So did you miss the whole "monster tactics" stuff, where we discuss hitting pcs when they're down? You don't think that's relevant?

The way death saves interact with damage, especially if you're within 5' of the adjacent figure?

Sorry, but I think the topic was discussed in this thread. Early on, and then throughout the thread, people answered the question with things like enough damage to reduce you to -max hps; three failed death saves (including from getting smacked while you're down); undead life drain max hp reduction; instant death effects such as power word kill; etc. I think drowning and suffocation were mentioned, along with strength drain from shadows, though I'll grant you that I don't recall anyone mentioning starving to death or dying of dehydration.

Yes, the discussion moved on to whether or not killing pcs is a bad thing, with certain posters asserting that doing so ruins the game for people, and others disputing that. That's all rather orthogonal to the original topic, but still relevant IMHO.

I apologise to does who actually did answer helpfully but i can tell you now this thread was almost useless to me and probably to anyone else who was interested in the topic as id say about 70% of this thread was unrelated and without being rude quite uninteresting.

You could always add your own contributions.

The thing about topics on discussion boards is they usually wander quite a bit. Where discussion leads, posts follow.

further apologies if the actual poster of the thread didn't feel the same and i too am just further de-railing the thread but honestly why does every topic on this dam forum lately have to some how become what is the equivalent of an edition war, how hard can it be to discuss the aspects of a system without putting your personal bias and techniques forward? Just discuss the merit of whats there.

Debate isn't always edition warring.

You're talking about D&D- a game in which your personal bias and techniques inevitably come out during game play. You've got people talking about their experiences and playstyles because it's an inevitable part of the discussion any time you talk about anything D&D. This isn't a "What are the rules about topic X?" thread, this is a discussion of a major element of the game- pc death- and how it happens. Of course people are going to discuss their games, playstyles and techniques- what else is there? Regurgitating the lines in the PH? Just go read the book if that's what you want.

Finally, the topic of pc death is one where the answers vary greatly by playstyle, and where people have strong opinions that don't all mesh. Of course there's going to be a lot of debate about it. And there's no one answer- that's the point of a game that enables different playstyles. Naturally that will engender debate. That's the nature of discussion. Some people think you shouldn't hit pcs when they're down and will post their objections (even though that's part of the RAW!). Others will jump in and say "But RAW!" Still others will say, "Monsters should act like monsters!" It's all part of the discussion.

 

[Rune]

what leaves me confused is a large amount of peoples answers to this being house rules and non BTB items such as used by tucks infamous kobolds but surely if your using these things one is not truly playing 5th edition DND?

Why not?

I know the purpose of a forum is discussion but have any of you even bothered to discuss what he actually asked?

The very first responses provided by-the-book answers. Some, in the form of the death save rules, which specify that critical hits count as double failures and, since you can automatically crit someone who is adjacent to you and unconscious, it is trivially simple--by the book--to kill an unconscious character before it can be healed.

Or too readily put forward your opinions on a loosely fitting subject of combat difficulty being more to do with a DM than system followed by arguing whos imaginary rulings for unconscious player characters is superior or in the jesters case he seems to just be arguing whos arguing more politely, which is rather sad.

I don't think you and I have been reading the same thread. Once answers had been provided to the OP, an essentially ethical question (should a DM try to kill characters while they're helpless) arose from them that was then debated. The Jester's entirely justifiable objections to the tone of one person's posts were because there is a huge difference between saying, "I disagree with you," and "You're wrong. Please stop saying it. You're hurting the hobby." The first can be said respectfully (whether intentional or not). The second can only be said disrespectfully (for what it's worth, though, the apology that arose from that side-conversation was, indeed, respectful).

how hard can it be to discuss the aspects of a system without putting your personal bias and techniques forward? Just discuss the merit of whats there. If suggestions of how to improve said system are then asked for, THEN PROVIDE THEM? Too many people in this world seem to have it in their head that their ideas are brilliant and clearly wished to be heard by all.

Houserules are part of the game--have been for decades. But never mind the nature of the rules, for the moment. Let's talk about the nature of a discussion. Sometimes, if someone has something to say that they think is related to the topic at hand, they will want to share it. Even if it doesn't directly answer an initial question. Especially if that question has already been answered. The discussion then takes a new course, but is enriched by the extra input. So, yeah, people are going to speak to be heard. Or is that against the rules?

I REPEAT HOW EVER AN ANSWER TO THE ABOVE POSTERS QUESTIONS IS NOT TO TELL HIM TO IGNORE 5TH EDITION AND JUST SAY THE CHARECTER IS DEAD BECAUSE THEN BY YOUR VERY OWN DEFINITION HE IS NOT PLAYING 5TH EDITION, HE IS PLAYING YOUR VERSION OF IT.

Nope. The rules of D&D (and 5e, specifically) are EXPLICITLY guidelines. This means that every single DM who changes, ignores, or introduces a rule is doing it right. And so are the ones who don't.

I was most disappointed in 5th as well to see them remove their only real ability of note and the whole point of the monster, which was their ability to move in and out of walls at free. The fact now that they must end their turn in an area which leaves them vulnerable to attack makes them allot less scary, that combined with their low HD and turning viability makes them no way at all scary to the average 10th level party unless in the obscene numbers i suggest above as theyd be dead long before they ever got the jump on them enough 9/10

Not sure if you're talking about shadows or wraiths, here, but, in either case they can travel through walls/ceilings/floors (in the case of the shadow, through cracks) and come back for surprise strikes later. So that hasn't really changed. Actually, with the fluidity and flexibility of 5e movement, it might even be better.

 

[Dausuul]

There have actually been whole threads on this topic.

Here's the TL;DR version- it works fine, provided that you let the group (mostly) choose their challenges rather than forcing them to follow a storyline or throwing encounters at them that are always universally aimed at the highest level pcs.

<awesome description of how a "start at 1" game works>

That's really cool, and kind of makes me want to run a game like that. What level have you taken it to? Is it sustainable into the low teens? How often does your group play? (My group can only manage to play about 1-2 times a month, which might be an issue if there's a big level gap.)

 

[fuzzlewump]

Given that 5e is explicitly designed to be tweaked and house ruled, I'd disagree here. You make the assertion that 5e isn't 5e if you aren't playing it 100% as-is, but notice how often the books encourage the DM to change or tweak the game.

With 5e this mantra just comes across as weak design, and of course, if the answer to any criticism of the game is 'well just tweak it, that's what it's designed for,' it really kills any discussion, but I doubt that's what you meant.

The flanking rules in the dmg for example just reeks of laziness to me, with no discussion on how positioning based advantages are meaningful choices for combatants when you can walk circles around opponents at no cost. Like, give me your best game with all the nooks and crannies explored reasonably well, and let me tweak from there.

 

[Nebulous]

I was most disappointed in 5th as well to see them remove their only real ability of note and the whole point of the monster, which was their ability to move in and out of walls at free. The fact now that they must end their turn in an area which leaves them vulnerable to attack makes them allot less scary, that combined with their low HD and turning viability makes them no way at all scary to the average 10th level party unless in the obscene numbers i suggest above as theyd be dead long before they ever got the jump on them enough 9/10

Yeah, well, I don't think I can agree with "their only ability of note and the whole point of the monster" to NOT include killing you with Strength drain and turning you into a shadow at zero hit points. Which, I would argue, is the defining feature of a shadow, not its being able to move through walls.