Scarbonac
Not An Evil Twin
You're the DM -- you can kill any character at any time, for any reason. The question is, why do you want to? Or is this thoroughly academic?
D&D 5E How do you kill a 10th level character?
You're the DM -- you can kill any character at any time, for any reason. The question is, why do you want to? Or is this thoroughly academic?
Thank you for editing that post.
I won't write any more of the posts you objected to. You write so persuasively and have such a tremendous biography as a DM that there is no way to dispute you. You were already respectful to me in saying what I expressed was a playstyle. That was much more than I dared to hope for. If you could continue to regard it like that, I would be very happy, for I pushed too far in making a case for you to stop and now I have lost the words for what to say. I got ahead of myself and imagined some kids reading these posts, thinking the game would be too hard or too much like "DM vs. player". Even young people will be much more shrewd in making their decisions, though, and I seem to write with a style others find very heavy-handed. I frequently hear that I am saying things like they are the only way or the only correct approach. I shall try to amend these ways.
I hope this suffices as an apology and as praise to your vast expertise and knowledge.
I won't write any more of the posts you objected to. You write so persuasively and have such a tremendous biography as a DM that there is no way to dispute you. You were already respectful to me in saying what I expressed was a playstyle. That was much more than I dared to hope for. If you could continue to regard it like that, I would be very happy, for I pushed too far in making a case for you to stop and now I have lost the words for what to say. I got ahead of myself and imagined some kids reading these posts, thinking the game would be too hard or too much like "DM vs. player". Even young people will be much more shrewd in making their decisions, though, and I seem to write with a style others find very heavy-handed. I frequently hear that I am saying things like they are the only way or the only correct approach. I shall try to amend these ways.
I hope this suffices as an apology and as praise to your vast expertise and knowledge.
the Jester
Legend
You're welcome.
Oh, feel free to dispute me anytime. I am strongly opinionated, but that doesn't mean I want to shut down discussion. Or that I'm always right!
Jester I was wanting some clarification from an earlier post. Sorry, I'm new on forums and don't know how to re-post your quote but in it you said that all PCs start at 1st level. Just for clarification, how well does that work when the rest of the party is 10th level? It would seem to me that any appropriate level trap or monster AoE would kill this remake quickly.
the Jester
Legend
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.
Some details:
Before 3e, and in fact until the pcs in my 3e game first reached around 4th or 5th level, I always used ES@1 (Everyone Starts at First Level). In fact, almost every game I played in used it, too. So I have a good deal of experience with this playstyle.
Now, with 5e having flattened the math substantially- ACs don't really increase much as monsters get higher-level, for instance- ES@1 is re-enabled. It absolutely didn't work in 3e or 4e, due to the way the math shot sky-high very quickly. For instance, the difference in AC between a 1st and 10th level monster in 4e is, on average, 9 points. That means that a monster that a 10th level character might need to roll around a 10 to hit is probably more like a 19 or 20 for a 1st level character. But in 5e, the difference is that the 10th level guy only needs to roll (say) a 7, while the 1st level guy still needs to roll a 12. (Making up numbers here, but it's not far off.)
So then- I run a pretty hardcore sandbox. This means that, rather than the pcs following a plot thread along escalating higher-level adventures, the pcs build a plot thread by choosing which hooks to engage with, and often (nearly always, in fact) are pursuing multiple different threads contemporaneously.
Note that, among other things, this means that I don't use "level-appropriate" anything, I use world-appropriate stuff instead. The pcs, at first level, go to the haunted castle known to be overrun by ghouls led by a powerful demon? Their mistake. The pcs, at tenth level, go to hunt down the little band of kobold highwaymen led by a goblin? That's a pretty easy adventure for them, but it's their choice.
This means that the pcs can leave trying to find that abandoned temple in the depths of the swamp until they feel like they're ready for it- a decision that the party reaches, not the DM, and one that allows the low-level guys to typically have their say. Combined with the fact that low-level monsters remain a threat to high-level pcs, this also means that they can pursue an adventure in which they fight largely lower-level monsters and still be threatened, have fun and gain interesting and worthy rewards (I also run a low-treasure game, so that chest of 2,500 gp is always a cool thing to find, even if you're 10th level or higher).
Furthermore, much of the time, higher-level bad guys have lackeys. So the low-level pcs often can pick their targets even in a fight with higher-level monsters/villains. So, for instance, the party attacks a powerful hobgoblin warlord. The 1st level guys know that he'll cut them down in one or two blows, but they also know that the other hobgoblins around are dangerous to the higher level pc guys who are the real strike against the warlord. So the low-level guys engage the lackey hobgoblins and keep them off the high-level guys' backs while they take out the boss warlord hobgoblin.
Now, is it a realistic possibility that the low-level pcs will get annihilated by high-level bad guys? Yes, especially if they are stupid enough to ask for it ("my first level barbarian charges the lich!"). But it's easy for the players to take actions to mitigate this.
That's not even discussing other possible ways of earning xp- exploration, roleplaying/diplomacy encounters, achieving major goals, etc. I use those somewhat sparingly, but I do use them.
Then, of course, there's the speed of advancement that the low-level pcs will have compared to the high-level pcs.
There's a good chance that any number of folks who strongly dislike this approach will chime in here and make a number of points against ES@1, many of which are very valid. Like so much else, this is a matter of playstyle choice. I strongly dislike starting a pc above first level, both as a DM and as a player. I want to know what my character, or Dave's or Pam's or Emmett's character, has actually experienced. If Tornag the Slayer starts at 10th level, I have no idea, no matter how nice and complete a backstory Pam or Emmett or Dave gives me. I just don't feel it. But if I've seen Tornag Red-Hair take on a tribe of goblins with his higher-level pals, free the kidnapped maiden from the gnoll encampment while the other pcs take on the gnolls and their demonic patron, then earn his nickname "the Slayer" by overcoming all the odds and taking out that ogre one-on-one while he was still only 3rd level, then I feel it.
I'm also very strongly of the mind that there just aren't that many high-level adventurers out there. One thing I really have come to loathe over the 3e/4e years is letting new high-level pcs come in out of nowhere. My 4e game is about 27th level now; if a new pc comes in (approximately a level lower than the player's last character), I feel like... where's this guy coming from? It's very hard to justify the sudden appearance of a 20+ level pc wizard when I have a list of the twenty-five epic npcs in the entire world. (Which I don't have in 4e, but I absolutely had a list of them for my 3.5 epic game, and it was probably somewhere around 30 npcs long.)
Mouseferatu
Hero
Whereas I'm one of those folks Jester mentions who hate ES@1. I despise it. I will never run a game that way, and I very well might walk away from a campaign that worked that way. I'd rather find a way of justifying the high-level replacement, no matter how tenuous.
But I'd never tell Jester he's wrong for doing it his way. (He is, but I wouldn't tell him. ) It is, as he said, entirely a matter of playstyle/preference.
Then again, I also prefer story-driven campaigns to sandbox campaigns*, so his tastes and mine clearly differ in some pretty broad ways.
*(Although, to be fair, I've never been in a good sandbox campaign. So I'm prepared to adjust my thinking on them if that ever changes.)
But I'd never tell Jester he's wrong for doing it his way. (He is, but I wouldn't tell him.
) It is, as he said, entirely a matter of playstyle/preference.Then again, I also prefer story-driven campaigns to sandbox campaigns*, so his tastes and mine clearly differ in some pretty broad ways.
*(Although, to be fair, I've never been in a good sandbox campaign. So I'm prepared to adjust my thinking on them if that ever changes.)
the Jester
Legend
This actually brings up another important point.
There's nothing wrong with not wanting to game with someone over something like this. Or over general lethality level, or story vs. sandbox, or the fact that the table is deadly serious or too silly, or the fact that the group drinks and smokes weed, or the fact that the group is core rules only and you really like splatbooks or whatever.
You can be friends, or even game together occasionally for one-shots and still not want to play in someone's actual campaign due to playstyle issues. The key is to find a game you will enjoy. If ES@1 makes it a game you won't enjoy, that's okay. There are other games out there, and some of them will be closer to your perfect sweet spot stylistically.
I'm of a mind that people who have been in a well-run, fun game of one style or another are more likely to have that style as their go-to.
Also, Mouse, for the record, I'd love to have you in a game sometime- even if it was just a one-off or something.
5E is a lot more 'soft' than 3rd and earlier editions at mid to high levels in my experience so far.
I'm running a conversion of City of the Spider Queen, known to be so challenging it was sometimes 'hopeless'. In 5e, even using a lot of deadly encounters, my players are breezing through it compared to how it used to be.
Why?
1. Lack of "Save or die" effects and traps.
2. Detect Magic as a ritual reveals a lot of traps.
3. Casters are much weaker, and this module is filled with them.
4. Characters have a lot more hitpoints, they're designed to be hit more and survive.
5. A lot of monsters have been scaled down in challenge. Beholders for example are more of an annoyance now than a deadly enemy.
6. Other minor things such as find familiar being a ritual and having virtually no effect when the familiar dies, this means the party has access to a basically immortal scout (who is named Kenny, because yes, he does die a lot).
Don't get me wrong, my players still *feel* challenged. But I find it hard to really challenge them with death - bar sending them up against something WELL above their level of course.
In my 3rd edition game I ran yonks ago, if I wanted to kill a player outright, I could design an encounter within the boundaries of normal play that could do it - and I have done that very thing. 5e I find it MUCH more difficult.
I'm running a conversion of City of the Spider Queen, known to be so challenging it was sometimes 'hopeless'. In 5e, even using a lot of deadly encounters, my players are breezing through it compared to how it used to be.
Why?
1. Lack of "Save or die" effects and traps.
2. Detect Magic as a ritual reveals a lot of traps.
3. Casters are much weaker, and this module is filled with them.
4. Characters have a lot more hitpoints, they're designed to be hit more and survive.
5. A lot of monsters have been scaled down in challenge. Beholders for example are more of an annoyance now than a deadly enemy.
6. Other minor things such as find familiar being a ritual and having virtually no effect when the familiar dies, this means the party has access to a basically immortal scout (who is named Kenny, because yes, he does die a lot).
Don't get me wrong, my players still *feel* challenged. But I find it hard to really challenge them with death - bar sending them up against something WELL above their level of course.
In my 3rd edition game I ran yonks ago, if I wanted to kill a player outright, I could design an encounter within the boundaries of normal play that could do it - and I have done that very thing. 5e I find it MUCH more difficult.
Last edited:
aramis erak
Legend
technically, reduction of maximum HP to 0... The life drain alone isn't enough, it has to run you out of max HP.
Similar Threads
