D&D 5E Let's Talk About Yawning Portal

[76512390ag12]

Could I ask how the *other* lower level adventures are? I have little interest in very high level D&D but lower level, yes.

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

 

[The_Hanged_Man]

I've found 5e quite deadly, more so than 2nd & 3rd, which are the other editions I have the most experience with. Getting a PC to 0 hp might be an issue at higher levels, but once there, death is difficult to avoid.

1.) Any damage at 0 hp = a failed death save. This includes damage from AoE spells (e.g. fireball), environmental damage, etc. Any decent high level encounter will have enemies using AoE abilities or environmental damage, if not both, so that's at least one automatic death save failure per round for downed PCs, if not more, in most encounters.

2.) A smart NPC will finish off downed PCs if they know the party has healing ability. Any attack vs. an unconscious PC has advantage. Any damage taken results in a death save failure. Any attack within 5' of the downed PC is an automatic critical if it hits. Critical hits = 2 death save failures.

3.) If a PC at 0 hp takes damage equal to his hit point total, he dies instantly. This is less likely at higher levels, but could happen with a critical hit, which any hit from a target within 5' will be.

For these reasons, even at high levels, an encounter with intelligent NPCs/monsters that the DM isn't softballing will be very deadly to any PCs that get to 0 hp. More often than not, PCs at 0 hp would be killed before they even got a chance to roll their first death saving throw, unless the next PC in the initiative order is able to heal them.

Killing a downed PC is easy in any edition. Well, in 2nd they are immediately dead at zero so it is a non-issue. In 3rd you die at -10 (or negative Con in Pathfinder) and one hit on a downed player is all generally it takes there.

What really separates 5e from older editions is how difficult it is to kill an upright PC. Anything short of triggering the instant death rule and the PC just goes to zero, and at high levels instant death is rare. I've seen it happened when players are critically hit by something like a Chasme, which reduces hp max, but once a PC hits 70-80+ HP they are pretty safe from instant death even when they are at low HP. Once they are at 100+ HP, instant death is extremely unlikely.

Compare this to 2nd and 3rd, where the threat of death is very real for even high level characters once they are at low HP. One solid non-critical hit is all it takes. Plus, there are massive damage rules which can kill a PC without even dropping them to 0 if they get hit hard enough. So, in general I find 5e much less deadly than 2nd or 3rd. I've seen PCs die in 5e, but they can often survive things that would kill their older edition ancestors outright.

 

[76512390ag12]

Killing a downed PC is easy in any edition. Well, in 2nd they are immediately dead at zero so it is a non-issue. In 3rd you die at -10 (or negative Con in Pathfinder) and one hit on a downed player is all generally it takes there.

What really separates 5e from older editions is how difficult it is to kill an upright PC. Anything short of triggering the instant death rule and the PC just goes to zero, and at high levels instant death is rare. .... Once they are at 100+ HP, instant death is extremely unlikely. .

How many *players* like instant death?



Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

 

[Luz]

The G-series are wonderful slugfests (so yes, lots and lots of combat) and I've never met a player yet who didn't like clobbering giants. That said, the giants in G1 are mostly about as smart as a bag of hammers which after a while can get boring from the DM side.

We had a lot of fun with this. After the first excursion into the steading, the players exploited one group of hill giants' stupidity by instigating dissent with them ("Y'know...you guys are way smarter than Nosnra. You could lead this tribe and have his treasure, and we can help you with that!") The party also took advantage of the hill giants feasting in the Great Hall, waiting until they had enjoyed a little too much ale. As a result, I made half the giants in the Great Hall drunk (poisoned condition) when the party attacked it. Good times.

Fortunately, G1 is short enough that playing a bunch of big dumb hill giants doesn't get too tiresome. Since G2 and G3 have more intelligent giants, I found it to be a nice change of pace to not have to think too hard with hill giants.

The ones in G2 and G3 can, however, be as smart as you want to make them*; giving you-as-DM a chance to have some fun as well.

Yes, this is how I handled it as well. IMC, the frost giants are cunning and predatory, setting up snares or various hunting traps and using the terrain to their advantage. Fire giants are military strategists that can coordinate tactics with ruthless efficiency (I fully expect G3 to be the most difficult for the players).

 

[Lanefan]

How many *players* like instant death?

Probably not that many...but that alone doesn't justify removing it from the game.

How many players like losing to a three-move mate in chess? Probably not that many...but that alone doesn't justify removing it from the game.

I mean, how much more can the game be safety-netted before it doesn't reflect the game-world realities and dangers of adventuring at all? Level loss is gone, magic item breakage or loss is (mostly) gone, spellcasting has become easier and easier as the editions have gone along...and all because players found these things inconvenient. But in the game world these things also all make sense as reasonable risks undertaken by those brave enough (or foolish enough) to take on field adventuring as a career.

The rewards gained in return, of course, are obvious: your character gets rich while also getting better at what it does.

Lan-"reward without risk isn't much of a reward any more"-efan

 

[jimmytheccomic]

How many *players* like instant death?



Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

Well, that's going to vary table by table, obviously, it's a good thing to discuss in Session 0.

In terms of the Tomb game- there's a reason my table is making new characters for it, instead of dropping it into our main campaign! But, based on the reputation, I think my players will be disappointed if no one dies. We're having some drinks, I'm playing the "Mario Death" sound effect whenever a PC drops, everyone is expecting some kind of funny death story. A "Tomb of Horrors" diversion is sold to the group in a different way than my main campaign was sold to them, though, it's always good to make sure player communication is happening and everyone is clear on expectations.

 

[76512390ag12]

Probably not that many...but that alone doesn't justify removing it from the game.

How many players like losing to a three-move mate in chess? Probably not that many...but that alone doesn't justify removing it from the game.

I think it does.
This is a game for having fun with your mates so the maximum fun option wins.
Plus.. you know how to tweak the game, or you can play 1e, or you can play an OSR that meets your needs.





Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

 

[76512390ag12]

A "Tomb of Horrors" diversion is sold to the group in a different way than my main campaign was sold to them, though, it's always good to make sure player communication is happening and everyone is clear on expectations.

Now that is a very good and appropriate way to engage with the need for "instant death"

Bravo[emoji6]



Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

 

[The_Hanged_Man]

How many *players* like instant death?

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

I imagine it depends on context for most. In an ongoing campaign, I doubt many (myself included) find it very enjoyable. Not exactly very good for continuity.

However, in a one-off "Deathtrap Dungeon" situation, where death is not only taken into account but expected, I think there is some enjoyment to be found.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

How many *players* like instant death?

I don't know. But there are apparently a lot of video game gamers out there who like to challenge themselves by cranking the difficulty settings all the way up. It baffles me, because I play video games for the aesthetic, not the challenge. But I appear to be in a majority.

On the other hand, I like very challenging D&D games (maybe not for all of them, but for some of them).