Level Up (A5E) Removing Pointless Death (+)

[Selganor]

Aren't skill rolls just ability rolls where you might add your proficiency bonus if you are proficient in the skill?
So, would you get disadvantage if you weren't proficent in the skill?

Also, I don't think the daggerheart "solutions" would be appropriate to A5E (or D&D)...

What's the limit on the "you succeed but then you die"? Would a bodyguard willing to die for those he protects kill a dragon that just swallowed him when it chokes on his corpse?
It would be a letdown if that just happens in the first few rounds of combat, wouldn't it?

If you usually have massive pc deaths in all your games maybe you should encourage your players to up their tactics and/or offer them chances to avoid or even escape difficult combats.

Yes, combat in D&D can be really dangerous (especially at lower levels), so maybe start the game at 3rd level and give them some "training sessions" with combats that aren't too dangerous but give the party chances to try tactics and teamwork with their "new" characters.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

How it works in FATE, is two fold:

If the enemy drops you, they get to narrate/dictate how they took you out. That could range from death to capture to permanent damage/injury or letting you love but them succeeding on whatever mission they were fighting you over.

However, at any time, you can choose to concede. So, at any point before you drop (this can be after you get hit but before you know how much damage you take), you choose to concede. What this means is you still lose the fight but you maintain narrative control of what happens. Maybe your character goes unconscious and rolls away from the combat to somewhere safe, maybe it means you choose to flee but drop the mcguffin, maybe it means you take some kind of temporary wound that gives you issues/penalties until you can cure it. Whatever is appropriate to the fight and agreed upon by the players and the DM.

In D&D, you could potentially concede while unconscious (because there’s always the chance that someone could revive you with out being taken out. So, maybe you can concede up until you roll your final death save. An enemy gets narrative control of your death as soon as you fail your final death save.

 

[Distracted DM]

I don't think any of my players would choose that Permanent Injury option if it meant it was ... permanent. They'd most likely chance their character dying, than having guaranteed survival but living with disadvantage on some ability checks. I guess in part this is because if your character dies... you can make a new one, with little loss.

 

[Retreater]

What's the limit on the "you succeed but then you die"? Would a bodyguard willing to die for those he protects kill a dragon that just swallowed him when it chokes on his corpse?
It would be a letdown if that just happens in the first few rounds of combat, wouldn't it?

The blaze of glory doesn't have to be killing the dragon. It could be a devastating strike that weakens the dragon to give the rest of the party a fighting chance. (Maybe swallowing the bodyguard temporarily suppresses its breath weapon?) Or the epic showdown keeps the dragon busy enough that the rest of the party can escape.

But the point is that anytime you have a character die in the first few rounds of combat, the combats typically take a nose dive and the party faces TPK because they are missing a crucial element. I've seen it a dozen times in the past 30 years.

If you usually have massive pc deaths in all your games maybe you should encourage your players to up their tactics and/or offer them chances to avoid or even escape difficult combats.

There's no matter of "get good, bro." I kill every group of characters I run for, regardless of system, regardless of the players' skill. It's likely because I run fast paced games with lots of combat.

And usually it's decided within two rounds. Not much time to run before it gets really bad.

 

[soviet]

It can really help to give the players effective but expendable resources - a bunch of decent healing potions, a scroll of fireball, etc. This is sort of a natural pressure valve that lets the players survive any encounters that go wrong or that prove to be deadlier than expected, without the GM having to put their thumb on the scales anywhere directly.

 

[Tessarael]

How often is the party of PCs getting ambushed? If they're ambushed, things can go bad very quickly. In that sense, I think the D&D 2024 change to make surprise just advantage on initiative rather than getting a full round of additional attacks off, makes things less deadly / more predictable in a good way.

 

[lichmaster]

One way I found to make combats more engaging and less swingy (to the extent possible by D&D) is to use alternating initiative. This means that the initiative order is not the usual as rolled.
Instead all groups roll for inititiative as an opposed contest, with the highest roll per group being used.
The group with highest initiative chooses which character of their own group acts first, then the group with the second higher initiative chooses which character of their own group acts, and so on, until all characters have acted once each.
In case of number mismatch between groups, I try to divide evenly the numbers of characters acting simultaneously: eg with 8 goblins vs 4 pcs, 2 goblins will act together, than 1 pc, etc.

This accomplishes several things:

• a bad initiative roll doesn't mean one side takes it on the chin while the other acts to the full extent of their action economy. Solo bosses will act. PCs won't be obliterated because their highest initiative roll was a 5. These two situations are very common and typically cause TPKs or anticlimactic boss fights.
• the order is fluid. Nobody knows which opponent will act and when. You only know who already acted (like with standard rules)
• choosing who acts also means that the party (and enemies) have more opportunities to strategize and collaborate. This also means that if a character goes down, the party may decide to let any healer act ASAP.
• alternating who acts between players and npcs also means everybody stays engaged. There are way less chances for the DM to start moving and rolling for 6 enemies while somebody at the table spaces out.

 

[Distracted DM]

One way I found to make combats more engaging and less swingy (to the extent possible by D&D) is to use alternating initiative. This means that the initiative order is not the usual as rolled.
Instead all groups roll for inititiative as an opposed contest, with the highest roll per group being used.
The group with highest initiative chooses which character of their own group acts first, then the group with the second higher initiative chooses which character of their own group acts, and so on, until all characters have acted once each.
In case of number mismatch between groups, I try to divide evenly the numbers of characters acting simultaneously: eg with 8 goblins vs 4 pcs, 2 goblins will act together, than 1 pc, etc.

This accomplishes several things:

• a bad initiative roll doesn't mean one side takes it on the chin while the other acts to the full extent of their action economy. Solo bosses will act. PCs won't be obliterated because their highest initiative roll was a 5. These two situations are very common and typically cause TPKs or anticlimactic boss fights.
• the order is fluid. Nobody knows which opponent will act and when. You only know who already acted (like with standard rules)
• choosing who acts also means that the party (and enemies) have more opportunities to strategize and collaborate. This also means that if a character goes down, the party may decide to let any healer act ASAP.
• alternating who acts between players and npcs also means everybody stays engaged. There are way less chances for the DM to start moving and rolling for 6 enemies while somebody at the table spaces out.

It's funny how many GMs, including myself, have always chased after better methods of initiative as a big factor in improving combats... and yet it's one of the few things that almost all of my tables have hated the idea of altering.