D&D 5E New DM let Player Die, now what?

[Sacrosanct]

this sounds like the HotDQ encounter (we encountered the same thing, and my monk went after them ). One thing to remember is you did not make a mistake by not telling him or her it could be fatal. You only have to describe what the PC sees and that's it. Most likely their PCs have never encountered an ettercap before, so they would have no idea what they were facing. You are a referee; it's not your job to coddle or otherwise give players more info than their PCs would have just to cater to their bad decisions. The only mistake I can see is that you mixed up some of the rules. Happens to everyone. But I don't think you shoulder all of the blame totally.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Thanks everyone for so much feedback.
Some details:
The group was resting at camp during late morning and had left their horses grazing near some trees and they knew there was forest very near by. They noticed three humanoids accompanied by four spiders taking their horses away. When the PCs come to stop them, the three humanoids run and the spiders stand their ground to allow for escape. The spiders paired off and 5 characters engage the spiders while the three humanoids run toward the forest with the horses. The humanoids have about two rounds of a lead on the PC who decides to give chase. He uses land strider to catch up with them and does so within another three rounds. He sleeps the horses, so the ettercaps turn on him.
There was discussion at the table that these were likely ettercaps. I should have shown a picture, perhaps? But confirmed they were ettercaps when the horses dropped.
This party... Doesn't have a lot of commeraderie. The players all get along well, and we have plenty of laughs around the table. But, due to some role play choices, there are definitely some tensions in the group (I have tried to provide a variety of ways for the group to bond, but, thus far, to no avail). So, once the threat of the spiders was gone, one PC decided to simply return to camp, but the others went... I think more to save the horses.
So, I did not provide warning that this might be a fatal choice for the PC to give chase. He asked about the terrain, which I said was lightly treed, and not yet fully forested. He did not ask about the humanoids, and I did not offer up any info either - which is where my fault lays.
The other part that I got wrong was the poison effect, which he should have saved against each round, but I also did not give him damage from the poison, only the disadvantage to attacks and saves.
My last mistake was asking him to do his death saves at disadvantage because I had written something down wrong in my notes, and didn't realize that it only applied to ability scores. So, what is in question is only his last death save. The others would have been fails regardless of the disadvantage. All my mistakes ��.

So there were a few minor rules mistakes. Hey, its a new edition these happen. The situation probably wouldn't change had all the rules been run perfectly. A lone character chased after 3 ettercaps ALONE, after there was (as you mentioned) table talk likely identifying them as such. The player simply bit off more than he could chew and is seeking to blame another for the outcome.

Remember the rules goofs and do your best not to repeat them next time, but the blame for that character death still belongs to the player.

 

[iserith]

Thanks everyone for so much feedback.
Some details:
The group was resting at camp during late morning and had left their horses grazing near some trees and they knew there was forest very near by. They noticed three humanoids accompanied by four spiders taking their horses away. When the PCs come to stop them, the three humanoids run and the spiders stand their ground to allow for escape. The spiders paired off and 5 characters engage the spiders while the three humanoids run toward the forest with the horses. The humanoids have about two rounds of a lead on the PC who decides to give chase. He uses land strider to catch up with them and does so within another three rounds. He sleeps the horses, so the ettercaps turn on him.

Cool tactic to throw sleep on the horses.

There was discussion at the table that these were likely ettercaps. I should have shown a picture, perhaps? But confirmed they were ettercaps when the horses dropped.

How did you describe the ettercaps? Did you telegraph their abilities in any way? Or were they just described as "humanoids?" Even "spider-like humanoids" should be somewhat adequate description that they might have some abilities that spiders do (poison, spider-climb, web-slinging...).

This party... Doesn't have a lot of commeraderie. The players all get along well, and we have plenty of laughs around the table. But, due to some role play choices, there are definitely some tensions in the group (I have tried to provide a variety of ways for the group to bond, but, thus far, to no avail). So, once the threat of the spiders was gone, one PC decided to simply return to camp, but the others went... I think more to save the horses.

Seems like this is an underlying issue to resolve. Check out the Character Discussion from my current group to see one way of sorting it out.

So, I did not provide warning that this might be a fatal choice for the PC to give chase. He asked about the terrain, which I said was lightly treed, and not yet fully forested. He did not ask about the humanoids, and I did not offer up any info either - which is where my fault lays.

It's not on you to say how deadly a thing is outside of a player taking an action to "try and gauge the threat," or the like. But you do have some obligation to telegraph the things the monsters can do so that players can use that in their decision-making processes. Telegraphing threats is a way of setting up fair situations while remaining in the fiction. It's a way to avoid players feeling like a conflict was a gotcha.

The other part that I got wrong was the poison effect, which he should have saved against each round, but I also did not give him damage from the poison, only the disadvantage to attacks and saves.

My last mistake was asking him to do his death saves at disadvantage because I had written something down wrong in my notes, and didn't realize that it only applied to ability scores. So, what is in question is only his last death save. The others would have been fails regardless of the disadvantage. All my mistakes .

Admit the mistakes and see what the players want to do about it, going with any reasonable suggestion they all agree on. It costs you nothing to do what the players want here and you have a lot to gain in the doing.

Good luck!

 

[Henry]

I agree with mr_outsidevoice, but a few extra points, thanks to your details:
1) it's a new system to all of you, regardless of prior experience. You WILL mess up. Your regular DM would mess up in the same boat. Don't beat yourself up too much.
2) it is a commonly-held belief that with no risk of death in D&D, rewards aren't as sweet. It's not the only way to play surely, but it's one i adhere to.
3) the real heart of the problem - your group I suspect is still geared to 3e and Pathfinder levels of challenge.

In PF, a level 4 might get away with tackling three Ettercaps, especially if they are combat-geared melee types, with high fort saves. (You didn't mention the PC's class in your story, sounds like wizard, who should have known better running off against three melee'ers.) Furthermore, listing three "humanoids" the player might have been in the mind of thinking bugbears, hobgoblins, orcs - though any "humanoids" palling around with giant spiders should have rung some bells in a meta gaming sense from established players. Finally:
4) the character still had longstrider going - he could have escaped instead of tackling them.

You are not responsible for the party gelling together or not - that is on the players, not you. The DM should encourage it, which you did, and give opportunities, but you aren't their nanny -- ESPECIALLY IF they are veteran gamers.

 

[KarinsDad]

Thanks everyone for so much feedback.
Some details:
The group was resting at camp during late morning and had left their horses grazing near some trees and they knew there was forest very near by. They noticed three humanoids accompanied by four spiders taking their horses away. When the PCs come to stop them, the three humanoids run and the spiders stand their ground to allow for escape. The spiders paired off and 5 characters engage the spiders while the three humanoids run toward the forest with the horses. The humanoids have about two rounds of a lead on the PC who decides to give chase. He uses land strider to catch up with them and does so within another three rounds. He sleeps the horses, so the ettercaps turn on him.
There was discussion at the table that these were likely ettercaps. I should have shown a picture, perhaps? But confirmed they were ettercaps when the horses dropped.
This party... Doesn't have a lot of commeraderie. The players all get along well, and we have plenty of laughs around the table. But, due to some role play choices, there are definitely some tensions in the group (I have tried to provide a variety of ways for the group to bond, but, thus far, to no avail). So, once the threat of the spiders was gone, one PC decided to simply return to camp, but the others went... I think more to save the horses.
So, I did not provide warning that this might be a fatal choice for the PC to give chase. He asked about the terrain, which I said was lightly treed, and not yet fully forested. He did not ask about the humanoids, and I did not offer up any info either - which is where my fault lays.
The other part that I got wrong was the poison effect, which he should have saved against each round, but I also did not give him damage from the poison, only the disadvantage to attacks and saves.
My last mistake was asking him to do his death saves at disadvantage because I had written something down wrong in my notes, and didn't realize that it only applied to ability scores. So, what is in question is only his last death save. The others would have been fails regardless of the disadvantage. All my mistakes .

Him chasing the creatures is on him.

You giving disadvantage to death saving throws is on you.

Another possibility is for you to give him a chance to not be dead after all. Figure out how many rounds of death saving throws that he had to make. Allow him at the start of the next game to make those saves without disadvantage. If he fails, he dies. If he succeeds, he lives. Hand wave away the fact that his original PC was missing from the intervening game session if he lives.

This way, you at least give him the chance to have his PC live. He is more at fault than you. He charged multiple foes by himself. But this way, at least you show him that you are trying to be fair both to him, and the other players. Let the dice decide. Simple. Easy. Explain to him that you are at least trying to meet him halfway.

As DM, it sucks when one makes some mistakes that lead to either PC death or PC heavy resource use. But in the long run, that can be corrected one way or another. The best part is that you are learning the rules better for the future.

 

[iserith]

If it was poison that brought on death, it's probably very easy to say:

"Imagine [Character]'s grave at the edge of the wood - a mound of dirt and stone with a simple grave marker upon which sits a cawing raven. The bird takes wing with much complaint when rocks tumble off the pile. Moments later, a grasping hand forces its way through the dirt. [Character], thought dead by his companions, emerges after the ettercaps' venom runs its course. Hunger and thirst return while a stiffness in the joints lingers. Has it been hours or days?

Tracks lead away from the makeshift grave. Storm clouds are brewing - there won't be much time before they are washed away. What do you do?"

The idea being that the poison gave the appearance of death, not actual death.

 

[Jester David]

There was discussion at the table that these were likely ettercaps. I should have shown a picture, perhaps? But confirmed they were ettercaps when the horses dropped.

That's a matter of style. I like to show pictures as well as describe monsters. Some DMs give Intelligence checks to identify them. Some just say what they are. That's not a mistake.

So, I did not provide warning that this might be a fatal choice for the PC to give chase. He asked about the terrain, which I said was lightly treed, and not yet fully forested. He did not ask about the humanoids, and I did not offer up any info either - which is where my fault lays.

Your job as the DM is not to warn the PCs. You don't have to tell them they're making a mistake and not to do something. Telling players what to do and what not to do is arguably a bigger mistake.
You present the world and the situation, and the players make their choices. At best you can ask again, the "are you sure?" check. But beyond that if they eff up they own their mistakes.

The other part that I got wrong was the poison effect, which he should have saved against each round, but I also did not give him damage from the poison, only the disadvantage to attacks and saves.

That's a mistake, but a small one. Even without disadvantage he likely couldn't have soloed three ettercaps on his own.

My last mistake was asking him to do his death saves at disadvantage because I had written something down wrong in my notes, and didn't realize that it only applied to ability scores. So, what is in question is only his last death save. The others would have been fails regardless of the disadvantage. All my mistakes.

Again, a minor mistake. The only one that really would have meant the difference between life and death. But if all the others would have failed, that means one success wouldn't have kept him alive and he would have just potentially died the next round anyway. And even if he did come back up, there'd be ettercaps there ready to knock him back down.
Odds were against him stabilizing at that point.

If I were DMing that game, I would have done one of two things differently.
If the player wanted to keep the character, I would have had the ettercaps take him captive. Turn things into a rescue mission. They paralyze him and cocoon him and save him to eat later.
Or I would have had the ettercap finish him on the ground.

 

[Gronin]

Just to throw in my two bits here, by far the biggest mistake was made by the character. If you go charging into a battle without your companions and get yourself in over your head, you have nobody to blame but yourself. The appliation of disadvantage to save was unfortunate, but as someone else mentioned the character in question was still likely to be done for.
Also, the characters need to remember that the world is a dangerous place and just because something crosses their path (or they cross something elses path) doesn't mean they should necessarily attack. Sometimes they need to run (even if the horses die).

 

[Nebulous]

To add... The biggest mistake was the player taking on 3 unknown enemies alone. Yes you made some rules mistakes but regardless he put himself in a dire situation and probably had no way to defeat all 3 of them. I like the idea of him being in a comatose state and crawling out of the shallow grave. And then let them meet the ettercaps again....

 

[redrick]

Death save or no, once a sole character is unconscious in a group of foes, he's done for. Two melee hits from the ettercaps will automatically kill. They melee with advantage vs a paralyzed foe and automatically hit with critical damage, which is the equivalent of failing 2 death saves. Or, as Jester Canuck suggested, they can cocoon him and drag him off to their lair, which at least allows for a chance at a rescue mission. (Which isn't necessary. Nothing wrong with killing a character on screen so we know for sure there is no turning back.)

The character's only chance would have been if the ettercaps, once knocking him unconscious, decided to walk away and leave him in a semi paralytic state on the side of the road. Which seems unlikely to me.

It's a bummer when you get a rules thing wrong, especially when it tarnishes a player character facing the consequences of his own foolish actions. If the player, or anybody else at the table, had challenged your rules calling on that poison in that moment, you would have been right to double check and, if it wasn't too late, walk back your ruling. Same thing with the death save. I'm sure a player from my group would have whipped out his PHB at that point and gone to the conditions section and shouted triumphantly, "Disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks! Not saving throws!" You could even try to walk back a situation like this in the immediate aftermath of a session, once you realized your mistake. That's where you'd say, "Actually, Bob, your wizard faded in and out of consciousness as the ettercaps wrapped him up in a cocoon," and then tell your players, "Actually, guys, you never found the body." That retcon is probably ok if everything is still fresh. On the other hand, a 4th level wizard going toe to toe with 3 ettercaps should be dead, and I think he would have died even without your misreading of the poisoned condition.

It's your job to be the ref on the rules, and you do have to do your best to know them, but it's not your job to know every single rule in the book. I sure as hell don't know them all, and I frequently have players correct me on things. Sometimes, a player disagrees with my interpretation and, in the interest of keeping the game going, I overrule that player and sometimes, after the session, I pull out the books and realize that the player was right and I was wrong. Sometimes this works to the players' disadvantage. Frequently, however, I forget rules or features to the players' advantage. I'll forget that a creature has multi-attack, or forget that a creature has a saving throw proficiency or forget that a creature has a trait that allows them to do something nasty and inappropriate. Nobody mourns when one of my monsters goes early to the grave because the DM forgot he had advantage when an ally is within 5 feet.

edit: grammar