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

[Dausuul]

@Dausuul:

I don't disagree with any of that. I just don't understand why you don't factor in the DM's tactical decisions as part of the mechanical underpinnings of the system, when they are actually a very critical variable in the equation.

I'm coming at this from the point of view of a DM who cut his teeth on AD&D, also known as the Edition of Random Instant Death. Even if you implemented the "death at -10" optional rule (and it was an optional rule back then, the standard rule was death at zero), at high levels those ten hit points made for a very narrow buffer. Any big monster could easily slam you right through to dead. Death was a common punishment for failing a saving throw; any two-bit poison needle trap had a droplet of "save or die" on the end of it. And of course both hit dice and Con bonuses were smaller, and you didn't get max hit points at first level, so you lived closer to the edge from the start.

As such, I often found myself having to fudge damage rolls, turn hits into misses, and keep close track of the PCs' hit points just to prevent my campaign from turning into a slaughterhouse. The same was true of other DMs of my acquaintance. I've heard of people who ran AD&D by the book and pulled no punches, and I have the utmost respect for them, but for me it was just unworkable. Even in 3E I still did some fudging. 4E was the first edition where I was able to run the game as I wanted without cheating in the players' favor*.

That is what I consider system lethality: The likelihood that PCs die without the DM intending to kill them. When the DM does intend to kill them, that's DM lethality. The low system lethality, combined with tools to enable high DM lethality, is one of the things I like about 5E. The game can be as lethal as you choose to make it, but the system won't go off and start butchering the party without your say-so.

[SIZE=-2]*Cheating in the monsters' favor, well... that's just one of the crosses PCs have to bear. [/SIZE]

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm coming at this from the point of view of a DM who cut his teeth on AD&D, also known as the Edition of Random Instant Death. Even if you implemented the "death at -10" optional rule (and it was an optional rule back then, the standard rule was death at zero), at high levels those ten hit points made for a very narrow buffer.

To be fair, though, critical hits were also an optional rule. Implementing both would make the game less lethal at low levels (where you get a lot of mileage out of those 10hp) and more lethal at high levels (where a critical hit could kill someone outright).

 

[Rune]

That is what I consider system lethality: The likelihood that PCs die without the DM intending to kill them. It's important to distinguish that from deliberate DM choices. It's one of the things I like about 5E. The game can be as lethal as you choose to make it, but the system won't go off and start butchering the party without your say-so.

That just strikes me as a byproduct of a system that has since evolved into something less clumsy--a system that now offers a high level of control.

(And I didn't see mention of the multiple ways "System Shock" could kill you if the rest of those frequently random ways weren't good enough to do the job.)

 

[AmerginLiath]

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.

Honestly, I think the best feeling as a DM is when the players are feeling battered, bruised, and thinking that they're going to die at any moment...and you're secretly knowing full well that those guys are pumping out enough awesome to win the day! Win-win all around...

 

[Quartz]

I'm not counting "being hit again while you're down" as failed death saves.

Quite, but the second example I gave is subtly different: you're being hit by multiple opponents at the same time.

 

[AmerginLiath]

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.

Best thing about 5E shadows? The idea that if you resurrect the dead character while his undead Shadow is still out there, he doesn't cast a shadow until you destroy that undead created from his dead body! ZOMG!!!11

 

[Dausuul]

That just strikes me as a byproduct of a system that has since evolved into something less clumsy--a system that now offers a high level of control.

That's another way to look at it, and I agree.

(And I didn't see mention of the multiple ways "System Shock" could kill you if the rest of those options weren't good enough.)

Heh, forgot about system shock. I'm reminded of that old Denis Leary "Death" routine about living in New York.

"I just moved to this edition four years ago, and I'm not leaving, because this is the most exciting place in the world to live! There are so many ways to die in AD&D, come on! Negative ten hit points, poison dart traps, system shock from polymorph, psychotic kobolds, potion miscibility, spheres of annihilation hidden in statues, extradimensional storage space exploding, rocks falling out of the sky..."

 

[fuzzlewump]

I would argue that providing the ability to tweak rules without breaking the whole comes across as strong design.

I see what you mean, but I wouldn't call that strong, it's just flexible. Any number of simple systems with somewhat bounded math like the d6 system or any dice pool system (shadowrun, wod) are flexible and can bend without being broken. Obviously it's a matter of degree, every rpg will be tweaked to an extent. But if I have to add in something as basic as flanking to a combat adventure game, and then use facing just to make it meaningful, that's lazy design. Let's be critical of it so they will design better systems that stand apart from each other next time.

 

[Rune]

I see what you mean, but I wouldn't call that strong, it's just flexible.

In my view, a system must be flexible to be strong. Otherwise, it breaks.

Let's be critical of it so they will design better systems that stand apart from each other next time.

No, I'm cool with what I've got. And if it isn't working for me, I'll just change it till it does.

 

[the Jester]

Because the system never causes a monster to attack a downed PC. That's the decision of the DM. If SirAntoine is DMing the game, it will never happen, even if the DM is following every rule to the letter. If The Jester is DMing, it'll happen regularly (if the party lets it).

For clarity, it will only happen when the pcs fight a monster for whom hitting a downed opponent is the logical choice- carrion crawlers and ghouls being two examples I gave earlier on. It's far less likely to happen with bandits, goblins, kobolds, etc., unless they determine that the pcs are just going to bounce back up and they can't mob the guy who keeps healing them.