D&D General If not death, then what?

[Chaosmancer]

Then that merely takes an absolute and turns it into a trend; the better players will usually (instead of always) outperform the good ones.

But any factor you care to list isn't a matter of skill. Character building? No skill needed when you can read a guide. Tactical combats? Matters just as much if not more what kind of tactics the DM is using, and even then the plan of "hit them til they stop moving" tends to work pretty well. Tapping every inch with a ten foot pole? Basic paranoia that anyone can come up with.

And, again, any combat plans can be failed by a d20. Any plans to avoid traps can be failed by a d20. Any game at all can crash and burn because the DM overestimates you and they make a mistake. No amount of "I'm a good player" actually does anything to lean you towards good outcomes.

 

[Chaosmancer]

For the record, bad luck can happen, sure, but IME PC death is due primarily to the way people play their characters 90% of the time.

You pushed your luck when your hit points were low.
You failed to act when you should have.
You didn't understand how a feature worked properly and you (or another PC) died.
You weren't prepared (lack of equipment, knowledge of the battle field, etc.).

Yes, there is always that chance that something happened entirely beyond your control, but it is pretty darn rare. There are also times when the above happen, but you feel you don't really have a choice. Whether or not you actually do is debatable.

Finally, I am not "drilling down" into their story. Yes, I am questioning it because they brought it up as an example of "playing right" and just bad luck. If there was any "just bad luck" it was the damage for sunburst. The damage the spell does is completely out of their control and had only about a 5% chance of rolling that high (or better). Now, maybe less damage would have finished of Yip-Yip. I don't know. But even 52 damage should not take down an average 10th-level druid, even without a CON bonus.

You didn't just question it once, you pressed for details three times, pointing out again and again things you felt they did "wrong" from how the other players played their characters, to questioning their health, to deciding that they should have acted out of character differently.

You couldn't accept "I had a good plan, and died to bad luck" You had to press to see if it was REALLY a good plan, and if they REALLY fell to bad luck even though, there is one glaringly obvious thing you only just acknowledged. "Now, if I had been there to view the combat, I might be able to offer a more thorough critique."

You weren't there. You weren't involved. You don't know the group, the DM, or anything else about the fight. I don't want to sound accusatory, but I find it rather telling that it is easy to read your posts as knowing better, despite having no access to the actual game. And despite them providing you all the information you could possibly want, you still have to acknowledge that... it actually could have been that it was bad luck like they said. Oops, the spell rolled higher than average, and that was all she wrote.

And, I'm pressing this point like I'm pressing Lanefan, because it seems like you are heavily invested in this idea that the game isn't as random as it is. That if a player dies, they die because they did something they shouldn't have. But it doesn't matter if you can trace "yip-yip"'s death to not casting aid at the start of the day and therefore six encounters later they didn't have the HP to survive the spell, because they didnt make a mistake, they just went with a different plan, that could have worked perfectly well, except for the roll of the dice. Utter, random, chance.

 

[tetrasodium]

You didn't just question it once, you pressed for details three times, pointing out again and again things you felt they did "wrong" from how the other players played their characters, to questioning their health, to deciding that they should have acted out of character differently.

You couldn't accept "I had a good plan, and died to bad luck" You had to press to see if it was REALLY a good plan, and if they REALLY fell to bad luck even though, there is one glaringly obvious thing you only just acknowledged. "Now, if I had been there to view the combat, I might be able to offer a more thorough critique."

You weren't there. You weren't involved. You don't know the group, the DM, or anything else about the fight. I don't want to sound accusatory, but I find it rather telling that it is easy to read your posts as knowing better, despite having no access to the actual game. And despite them providing you all the information you could possibly want, you still have to acknowledge that... it actually could have been that it was bad luck like they said. Oops, the spell rolled higher than average, and that was all she wrote.

And, I'm pressing this point like I'm pressing Lanefan, because it seems like you are heavily invested in this idea that the game isn't as random as it is. That if a player dies, they die because they did something they shouldn't have. But it doesn't matter if you can trace "yip-yip"'s death to not casting aid at the start of the day and therefore six encounters later they didn't have the HP to survive the spell, because they didnt make a mistake, they just went with a different plan, that could have worked perfectly well, except for the roll of the dice. Utter, random, chance.

The plan was not good. Any plan that involves the barbarian using a bow in order to avoid getting into melee while the entire group is split apart so they can't aid each other in meaningful ways & possibly taking on different encounters all on their own is about as far as you can get from a good plan as possible.

Edit: The plan certainly sounds dramatic, but so does the charge of the light brigade.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The plan was not good. Any plan that involves the barbarian using a bow in order to avoid getting into melee while the entire group is split apart so they can't aid each other in meaningful ways & possibly taking on different encounters all on their own is about as far as you can get from a good plan as possible.

Edit: The plan certainly sounds dramatic, but so does the charge of the light brigade.

So you have the Barbarian's dexterity score, weapon, and they terrain map to prove this? Or are you simply arguing it can't be good because the barbarian's optimal solution should have been melee? Even if the barbarian was playing tactically because being in melee with the zombie giant might have killed them?

You are absolutely certain that you know the game state, the character details, and the potential avenues for success better than the people who were playing the game at the time?

 

[Oofta]

So two situations, one were I think it would have been my fault if the PC died, one where it was not.

In my current game we're playing ToA and in the session 0 we discussed that character death was definitely on the table, we were all OK with it. We get into a situation where we're at the top of a big pit and there's a large dragon flying up. My PC (a monk) chugged a potion of invulnerability and then on his first turn spent his last ki point to jump down onto the flying dragon. As a melee character I'm much more effective going toe-to-toe and this gave the rogue sneak attack he wouldn't have had otherwise.

Thanks the giant spider druid webbing the dragon twice, lucky rolls on our side and bad ones for the dragon, I survived with a dozen HP. But it was a huge risk on my part and if I had died it would have been fine. I would not have felt punished.

On the other hand I was in an interactive AL game, just about done with a tough encounter with my 2nd level PC. Then the organizer had a giant come crashing in, attacked all PCs (ignoring NPCs) everyone in the room doing something like 30 points of damage* instantly killing my PC and my wife's since we were only 2nd level. Oh, and of course no chance to see it coming or even opportunity attacks as it left.

The first? I took a risk to save my group. I knew the risk and took it anyway. The latter? That was a Bozo-no-no in my book and bad DMing. The monster was far, far above our CR, we had no chance to react, the organizer ignored the rules for the monster. It was the equivalent of "rocks fall, everyone dies".

So sometimes I put death absolutely at the feet of the player. Take a risk, suffer the consequences.

On the other hand (third hand?) while the DM can go out of their way to kill PCs, unless you house rule, the risk can't be totally avoided. Want to kill PCs? Focus fire and double tap. Once someone is down, every hit is a crit which cause two failed death saves. Two strikes and you're out.

Then there are just times when the dice go sideways. Bad luck on behalf of the PCs, good luck for the opponents, somebody goes down and nobody gets to them fast enough. Throw in a couple of 1s on death saves for the PC for good measure. Sometimes s**t happens.

The DM can always change the rules, but there are no guarantees in life. Or D&D.

*or thereabouts, I just remember it being more than the giant (probably a mouth of Grolantor) should have done, enough to take me to negative max HP. So max damage instead of average?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Then your experience significantly differs from mine. Radically differs, actually. I find most players are so over-cautious and ultra-planning that they prepare for several contingencies that weren't even possible to begin with, just in case.

I had thought this was the whole point of the heavy logistical/"strategic" gameplay favored by old-school D&D?

In earlier years, I would agree completely. But with the players (groups) I've had playing 5E, caution seems to be thrown to the wind entirely...

And I think it would hardly be the first time our experiences differed radically.

You didn't just question it once, you pressed for details three times

Yep, it is called having a discussion.

You couldn't accept "I had a good plan, and died to bad luck" You had to press to see if it was REALLY a good plan, and if they REALLY fell to bad luck even though, there is one glaringly obvious thing you only just acknowledged. "Now, if I had been there to view the combat, I might be able to offer a more thorough critique."

Well, they said that was the case, challenging my view that most of the time it isn't just back luck. They were nice enough to provide details.

You weren't there. You weren't involved. You don't know the group, the DM, or anything else about the fight. I don't want to sound accusatory, but I find it rather telling that it is easy to read your posts as knowing better, despite having no access to the actual game. And despite them providing you all the information you could possibly want, you still have to acknowledge that... it actually could have been that it was bad luck like they said. Oops, the spell rolled higher than average, and that was all she wrote.

Right, I wasn't there, which is why I wrote, "Now, if I had been there....".

Well, I didn't say "it actually could have been back luck" in that the high damage roll was solely responsible for the druid's death. As I pointed out, an average 10th-level druid would have more HP (especially with any CON bonus) than the damage done. If they went into a BBEG fight with less than full hp, it was a tactical error unless they literally felt they had no choice (which I've acknowledged could be the case).

And, I'm pressing this point like I'm pressing Lanefan, because it seems like you are heavily invested in this idea that the game isn't as random as it is. That if a player dies, they die because they did something they shouldn't have. But it doesn't matter if you can trace "yip-yip"'s death to not casting aid at the start of the day and therefore six encounters later they didn't have the HP to survive the spell, because they didnt make a mistake, they just went with a different plan, that could have worked perfectly well, except for the roll of the dice. Utter, random, chance.

No, it is random. The d20 is very swingy so it can be very random. That wasn't my point.

My point was that most of the time PC death isn't caused just by random rolls, but by the decisions that led to those rolls being made.

For example, the wizard choose to hide, so apparently with either out of range or out of line of sight to counterspell the sunburst. They might have failed even if they tried, but they never tried. Now, if they were out of line of sight due to being behind cover, the sunburst spell shouldn't have affected them IMO. Not knowing precisely, I can't say, I can only speculate.

But in a game I recently played in, a player pressed against a powerful foe and died from a critical hit. If they had chosen to dodge instead, serving their goal of being the target, they would likely have survived because it wouldn't have been a critical hit (just 1 in 400 it still would have been).

From what I know of their encounter, I understand their tactics but as a player would never have gone with it. Wolfpacking one target or the other, being close enough to support each other, etc., probably would have been sounder.

 

[tetrasodium]

So you have the Barbarian's dexterity score, weapon, and they terrain map to prove this? Or are you simply arguing it can't be good because the barbarian's optimal solution should have been melee? Even if the barbarian was playing tactically because being in melee with the zombie giant might have killed them?

You are absolutely certain that you know the game state, the character details, and the potential avenues for success better than the people who were playing the game at the time?

When people talk about ranged weapon builds there are mechanical reasons why dex based longbow barbarian builds are rarely of note.

 

[DND_Reborn]

There's nothing wrong with a DEX-based barbarian build. After all, rage works as long as you attack, it doesn't specify it has to be melee. A DEX-based barbarian will have a better unarmored defense, can still do good damage, etc. The damage resistance from raging it then the important part, not the damage bonus from raging, and if you go the typical totem warrior, it is nearly universally applicable.

However, then you are not tanking with that character, which depending on the rest of the party, could become a problem. But, take something like crossbow expert so you can put the build right in the middle of the fight, and then you are tanking as well.

It isn't the "typical" approach to the barbarian class, but then again neither is the STR-based sword & board ranger, which is a PC I am currently playing and having a lot of fun with. He even stealths.

 

[Oofta]

There's nothing wrong with a DEX-based barbarian build. After all, rage works as long as you attack, it doesn't specify it has to be melee. A DEX-based barbarian will have a better unarmored defense, can still do good damage, etc. The damage resistance from raging it then the important part, not the damage bonus from raging, and if you go the typical totem warrior, it is nearly universally applicable.

However, then you are not tanking with that character, which depending on the rest of the party, could become a problem. But, take something like crossbow expert so you can put the build right in the middle of the fight, and then you are tanking as well.

It isn't the "typical" approach to the barbarian class, but then again neither is the STR-based sword & board ranger, which is a PC I am currently playing and having a lot of fun with. He even stealths.

I keep thinking someday I'm going to do a dex based barbarian that does two weapon fighting. Maybe talk to the DM into letting me reflavor short swords as "claws".

Make him short with a funky haircut, probably a dwarf to be more true to the source inspiration:

 

[Micah Sweet]

I keep thinking someday I'm going to do a dex based barbarian that does two weapon fighting. Maybe talk to the DM into letting me reflavor short swords as "claws".

Make him short with a funky haircut, probably a dwarf to be more true to the source inspiration:

Snickt!