D&D 5E New Death and Dying Rules

[MarkB]

Bolded Mine
I am confused by the part that I bolded since the death saving throw was presented in the 3e Unearthed Arcana.

Why are you confused? Were you under the impression that 3e Unearthed Arcana was required reading for all D&D players?

 

[Dausuul]

I wonder if these death rules are truly necessary.

What would the game would be like if we just used the simplest possible rule: If your character is reduced to 0 hp, she is dead.

Or if that is too harsh, maybe: If your character is reduced to 0 hp, she is knocked unconscious. Unconscious characters can only be revived after a 5 min rest. Restoring hp does not restore consciousness.

The problem with the first option is that, as you say, it's too harsh. It forces a very gritty, un-heroic play style in which PCs must often retreat despite being able to keep fighting, and the punishment for any miscalculation (or simple bad luck) is sudden death. If you want to play like that, great, but the basic game should be friendly to casual players and death at zero is anything but.

The problem with the second option is that it goes too far the other way. Death at zero is too brutal, but there needs to be some risk of death in combat or a lot of the tension is lost. (Yes, yes, an experienced DM can create tension by adding other stakes, but again, the basic game must be friendly to casual players, and that includes casual DMs.)

 

[GSHamster]

But why is death at 0 too harsh, but death at -10 is not too harsh? What is the difference between 0 to -10, or 10 to 0?

Is it mainly the fact that people do not attack an opponent in the 0 to -10 range, where they will attack someone in 10 to 0?

 

[GX.Sigma]

But why is death at 0 too harsh, but death at -10 is not too harsh? What is the difference between 0 to -10, or 10 to 0?

10.

 

[Aloïsius]

But why is death at 0 too harsh, but death at -10 is not too harsh? What is the difference between 0 to -10, or 10 to 0?

Is it mainly the fact that people do not attack an opponent in the 0 to -10 range, where they will attack someone in 10 to 0?

Yup.

That, and the fact that having only two states for a PC (alive and kicking or dead) breaks any suspension of disbelief with the strength of an angry god. Seriously, wars and fight have always created more wounded than dead. With the "death at 0" rule, there is never ever any seriously wounded character, except for those who are insta-dead. That would be a world without healer, without surgeon, without even the mere notion of "surgery".

 

[Dausuul]

But why is death at 0 too harsh, but death at -10 is not too harsh? What is the difference between 0 to -10, or 10 to 0?

Is it mainly the fact that people do not attack an opponent in the 0 to -10 range, where they will attack someone in 10 to 0?

Yes, exactly.

From a monster's point of view, it makes no sense to waste attacks on a fallen foe*. You target the ones who are still alive and kicking. Once you've got them all on the ground, then you can go around slitting throats if that's your preference. So unconsciousness serves a protective function; it takes the heat off that character and redirects it to those with some hit points left.

Of course, in theory it would be possible for PCs at 10 hit points to fake unconsciousness, or flee the battle, and achieve the same end. But here you run into the problem that D&D is a role-playing game, and the fiction is important. If you're a tough, bold adventurer, and your friends are battling for their lives, are you going to run away or fake injury when you've still got some fight left in you? This is what I mean by "death at zero" forcing a very gritty, un-heroic playstyle.

[SIZE=-2]*Unless, of course, you know that that foe is about to bounce right back up and rejoin the fight. This is one of many reasons why I think being dropped to zero should put you down for the rest of the encounter; even if you get healed, you don't regain consciousness until you've had at least 5 minutes' rest. But that's a separate issue.[/SIZE]

 

[Alzrius]

From a monster's point of view, it makes no sense to waste attacks on a fallen foe*. You target the ones who are still alive and kicking. Once you've got them all on the ground, then you can go around slitting throats if that's your preference. So unconsciousness serves a protective function; it takes the heat off that character and redirects it to those with some hit points left.

I, personally, can't stand that idea. Presuming that ("spike") healing - or some other immediate method of putting unconscious allies back on their feet - exists, then intelligent monsters should know to take an action to make sure that the enemy they just put down stays down, as your footnote noted.

The very idea of being unconscious and helpless as being a superior defense to being conscious and able to act just seems incredibly backwards to me.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I, personally, can't stand that idea. Presuming that ("spike") healing - or some other immediate method of putting unconscious allies back on their feet - exists, then intelligent monsters should know to take an action to make sure that the enemy they just put down stays down, as your footnote noted.

And yet, PCs never do.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I played a character that took the die hard feat as a prerequisite for a PRC I took. Now, being a noble knight and all, he would fight on at negative hp even if it would probably have been muuuuch safer to just go unconscious. Going straight from fighting to dead (which is how my character ended up) is very very scary.

There's lots of fiction where the characters get knocked unconscious instead of being killed outright. I think the new death save rules makes sense in that regard. Maybe something like "system shock" rolls from AD&D 2nd edition would make sense, but I think it would be an unneede complication.

 

[Alzrius]

And yet, PCs never do.

Only because, for some reason, NPCs that drop below 0 hit points are never healed by other NPCs, almost as though it just didn't occur to them...

In other words, PCs don't do that because GMs don't reinforce this idea on their (that is, the GM's) side of the fence.