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

[Paraxis]

No one would be trying to finish off enemies because raise dead exists. Once a combat begins, everyone has to fight to win, not waste time.

Raise dead and spells like it are after combat, healing word, cure wounds and the 'mass' versions of those spells are much more common and happen in combat.

So drop any obvious healers first if you can, and kill anyone you don't want to get back up before moving on to the next target.
PC fighting enemy with multi-attack, first attack drops him to 0 h.p, sure the enemy can move over and make an attack without advantage and maybe hurt another, or he could attack with advantage and keep the guy he just dropped from getting back up again.

Yeah it sucks, but a good number of monsters and npc's will use that extra attack to complete the job and get that critical hit in for 2 failed death saves, it still gives the PC a chance to live just not a very good one.

Just saying no one is thinking about raise dead during combat that is for after the fight, understanding magic healing effects are used during combat is something the inhabitants of a D&D world should expect and take into account with their tactics.

 

[Ahrimon]

You have to be nice.

Since when? My players expect me to be fair. Nice only applies in real life interactions between DM and players. My players, and many others on these boards and others, expect the DM to be fair but play the opponents as they should be played. Animals that are looking for their next meal will probably try to drag off the first character they drop. The Dragon may stomp on the downed warrior just to see the look on the others faces. The gnolls go for the throat. And the goblins don't bring the characters tea and scones, they stab them with spears and stick them with their swords. That's pretty much the opposite of nice.

 

[Ahrimon]

No one would be trying to finish off enemies because raise dead exists. Once a combat begins, everyone has to fight to win, not waste time.

You make a big assumption with the availability of raise dead. In most campaigns, not every Tom, Richard, or Harry is an adventurer walking around with resources and power for a raise dead. In many campaigns the characters are the .001% whereas everyone else is dead once their dead. Healing can bring someone back who is seriously wounded, but once your dead, your dead. Best way to ensure they're dead, stick something in them.

In a campaign where raise dead is commonly available to the point that goblins and gnolls expect it, I'd still have them do that. Why? Because they know that even if they loose, these people can't have unlimited money or enough resources to keep doing it all day. So everyone they finish off means buys the rest of the clan that much more time while the people retreat to raise their dead or eventually they run out of many and stop bothering you because they know it's not worth it.

 

[SirAntoine]

I think the idea is you have to make sure your players have a nice time, Ahrimon.

That's a good clarification, Paraxis. I had a problem seeing these monsters say "Kill him so he can't be raised."

 

[SirAntoine]

It's taboo. So no, you shouldn't do it.

 

[AmerginLiath]

It's also a matter of which monsters/enemies will act to kill downed foes. As noted, gnolls are logical for acting is such a matter, while goblinoids or kobolds wouldn't (they'd be more ikely to either kill downed foes after battle or capture unconscious enemies for slaves, depending on circumstances). Likewise, I've had a characters torn to utter pieces by ghouls while already petrified and completely accepted it as part and parcel of the creatures' schtick, while I wouldn't imagine that a medusa would stop mid-battle to shatter me or something.

 

[Ahrimon]

I think the idea is you have to make sure your players have a nice time, Ahrimon.

That's a good clarification, Paraxis. I had a problem seeing these monsters say "Kill him so he can't be raised."

I, and my group, don't equate winning everything to a good time. I've had many groups over the years (I move a lot in the military) and many of my friends that I still keep in touch with still talk about some epic character deaths. It was never a slaughter fest, but a character dying has never been taboo or something that automatically meant that someone wasn't having fun. The fun has always been getting together with friends and enjoying a great shared story. Sometimes people die in stories.

I'm sure Boromir's player didn't pack up and leave in tears when he died. He's probably still talking about his epic death saving the halflings to this day.

It's ok though, I have different expectations from a game than you do. But you keep stating that characters getting killed is taboo or unfun for the players as a matter of fact when it isn't. It's what you, and I assume your players, expect from a game but not a universal truth.

 

[Schmoe]

Thanks for all the replies! I had forgotten about Power Word Kill, and hadn't read about Magic Jar, but other than that straight death effects are remarkably absent from the game. I suppose I can agree with Anth that petrification could also be considered death, but those have less of a penalty for recovery. The failed death saves for additional damage is another factor that makes combat more deadly, but as people have pointed out it can be controversial if used intentionally to kill characters.

I actually like the 0 HP and Death Saves mechanic quite a bit, but I guess I have two problems with it. First, the negative HP threshold for instant death is so high for high level characters that it may as well not even exist. Second, the lack of death effects leads to ludicrous situations where an assassin NPC who sneaks up and assassinates a paralyzed PC has basically zero chance of killing him, at least according to RAW. I realize that RAW is not the final word in the matter, but to many, including myself when I was a younger DM, it takes a big leap of confidence to move away from the RAW and make a different ruling, especially if that ruling hurts the PCs.

I like to play games where death is a real threat that carries a real penalty. I guess I'd have to see it in play, but I feel like lowering the negative HP threshold for instant death would help restore some of what has been lost. If death effects have largely been replaced by large amounts of damage, those large amounts of damage should have the potential to actually kill someone.

As far as the penalty for dying goes, I actually really like the 5E solution of a -4 penalty that is lessened with each long rest. That is a significant penalty that can hinder the character's immediate plans in a big way, but it's not a huge yoke that cripples the character for the rest of a campaign, like a level loss could be in previous editions. I'm sure others have different comfort points, but to me the 5E solution is a great compromise. I'm not happy about Revivify, however, because as long as that spell's around there's practically no reason that anyone would ever have to face the penalty. LOL, I guess I'm never happy. At least Revivivy is an easy solution.

 

[SirAntoine]

You put the right amount of thought into it, and I know you'll be a great DM someday.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I actually like the 0 HP and Death Saves mechanic quite a bit, but I guess I have two problems with it. First, the negative HP threshold for instant death is so high for high level characters that it may as well not even exist. Second, the lack of death effects leads to ludicrous situations where an assassin NPC who sneaks up and assassinates a paralyzed PC has basically zero chance of killing him, at least according to RAW. I realize that RAW is not the final word in the matter, but to many, including myself when I was a younger DM, it takes a big leap of confidence to move away from the RAW and make a different ruling, especially if that ruling hurts the PCs.

Both of these problems are problems with the instant death mechanic. If you change the threshold, both of these problems are solved. I agree with you that the mechanic is ineffective after, say, level 3. What I was suggesting during play test feedback was reducing that to match your Constitution score:

"When damage reduces you to zero hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your Constitution score." [or twice your Constitution score, if you prefer].

(It's what I'd suggest as a Houserule.)

This has the advantage of making it better than a flat -10, but dependent on your character's ability scores. It also means that players begin to be cautious when their hit points are down -- it's not all-in necessarily; retreat and regroup becomes a much more sensible plan more often. And for my players, that fear of character death is what makes combat interesting.