Should D&D Have an Alternate Death Mechanic?

[Ogrork the Mighty]

One of my pet peeves with the current version of D&D is how fatal it can be. So many save or die options out there and potential triple-damage-digit attacks that fatalities are almost impossible to avoid.

Death isn't really a problem due to the abundance of resurrection-type spells. But that usually costs you a level.

Wouldn't it be better to have an alternate mechanic for death? Instead of instant death, why not some kind of comatose/incapacitated state that takes you out of the encounter but allows you to come back after the battle (presuming it's not a TPK)?

I think the game would be more fun if death wasn't as penalizing as it is.

Thoughts?

 

[blargney the second]

Instead of save or die, we use save or dying.
-blarg

 

[DogBackward]

This is something I've been doing in my games for a while. Gonig to -9 is no problem, but if you hit -10 or are instantly killed, you are out until you are healed normally. I usually impose a penalty of some sort, however, depending on the circumstances.

If you were "killed" by a Slay Living or something like that, your soul has a foul sympathy with negative energy, and you take +1 damage per die from negative energy effects. If you were "killed" by a single powerful blow, you might have a -2 penalty to checks involving the limb attacked, or permanently lose a few HP.

While I think there does need to be a penalty for "dying", I run very story oriented games, so having my character die for real can kind of hamper that. Characters in my game don't actually die unless we both agree that it's right for the story.

The main reason for this is that I really don't like raising/ressurection... Death should be something real and have a major impact on the game and the characters, not "Okay, Bob died, who's got a diamond?"

 

[FireLance]

What? Nobody's showed up to complain that removing death from D&D would coddle the players, destroy the game, turn it into a video game, and spell the end of civilization as we know it yet?

Given the fuss that was kicked up over Mike Mearls' revised rust monster (which only weakened weapons and armor temporarily instead of destroying them), and all the complaints about players feeling entitled to equal-CR challenges and gear by level, I'm surprised.

Where are all the impassioned arguments about how dying builds character, and that without the threat of PC death, the game can never be truly challenging and fun?

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Instead of save or die, we use save or dying.
-blarg

That's very simple and very, very interesting. At what stage of dying? -1? Or do you roll a d10?

The only downside I could see is that a spellcaster might be burning a high-level spell to take an opponent out of the battle, but with this alternate rule the victim could be back in action the following round if healed.

Maybe use dying and out of action for the encounter? Or impose some other kind of penalty for the remainder of combat? (sort of like resurrection sickness in World of Warcraft)

 

[DungeonMaester]

I use fort saves vs. the players Con score vrs passing out, and Con plus con bonus vrs death.

Steps
Save vrs passing out (Fort save vrs con score)

IF
Players make the save each round equal to there con score then they pass out and do not have to save vrs death.

IF
Players fail the save then they have to make a save vrs death at Con+Bonus



All groups will have their own rules which fit for the players of course, this style of play (Diehard, as we call it) works for us.

---Rusty

 

[kaomera]

One of my pet peeves with the current version of D&D is how fatal it can be. So many save or die options out there and potential triple-damage-digit attacks that fatalities are almost impossible to avoid.

What? Nobody's showed up to complain that removing death from D&D would coddle the players, destroy the game, turn it into a video game, and spell the end of civilization as we know it yet?

I think that the OP's post demonstrates pretty clearly that he's not a fan of the idea of severe / permanent penalties being applied to PCs. IMHO PC death in 3e is far more common than it really was in AD&D, it just really doesn't matter as much anymore. As such it has a tendency to be treated as more of an annoyance than anything else. Any group that feels that death / level drain / etc. is hurting their fun should, indeed, be looking for ways to mitigate such unpleasantness.

When I ran AD&D, death and other more-or-less permanent penalties to the PCs where meant to make the successes they might achieve all that much sweeter. And I think it usually worked. Most of the players I play 3.x with have a completely different mindset. My intentions might be the same, but the results aren't going to be nearly as good. It's not 1972 anymore, and unless I can find players who want to play in that type of game (and I'm not even 100% sure I really do anymore, either) I need to adapt.

So, to summarize, the OP is too far beyond help for me to bother correcting his outlook! I am quite secure in my sour grapes, I don't feel the need to let him know that he's not really having fun.

 

[blargney the second]

That's very simple and very, very interesting. At what stage of dying? -1? Or do you roll a d10?

You're at negative [spell level] hit points, max -9. If you want to simulate rez sickness, impose a negative level for a period when they get healed back to consciousness. Period = encounter/hour/day as necessary.

 

[Phlebas]

The biggest complaint PC's normally have for character death is wether or not it was a result of their unpreparedness or stupidity (oops, should really have checked for traps first), or did they just open a door and take massive hp damage from the monster waiting silently on the other side. (I remember in a LARP adventure someone was killed by a tarrasque leaping out from behind a bush - we still talk about it 15 years later)

A lot of that is down to the DM, and I just wouldn't do that to a group - IMHO even slay living needs to give the party a chance to spot the nasty evil guy first. If you play fair then there's no need to give any additional saves or second chances. (I even gave the party a Raise dead scroll early on in the game so i wouldn't feel guilty if I got an encounter wrong)

If you're playing a slightly darker scenario where the bad guys really will set up traps and not bother to gloat first, then a second save (dying v dead) makes sense if you dont want to lose the involvement of the PC's

 

[Greg K]

What? Nobody's showed up to complain that removing death from D&D would coddle the players, destroy the game, turn it into a video game, and spell the end of civilization as we know it yet?

If they did remove it, I just wouldn't play it. No death, no real sense of risk for the character and ,therefore, no interest for me

 

[RangerWickett]

You don't remove death. You just make random death of individual PCs rarer. D&D is a party-based game, so I'm perfectly fine with a character dying if the whole party is defeated, but I don't like it when one PC dies in combat, and the rest of the party survives. Killing someone should be a major event. You shouldn't just die when your HP reaches -10.

My suggestion: At negative hit points, you are dying, but conscious. You lose a hit point each round. If you take any action other than talking or moving at half speed, you drop immediately unconscious and lose a hit point. You lose your Dex-modifier to AC, but you aren't helpless.

When your negative hit points equal or exceed 10 + your level, you fall unconscious if you haven't already, and are at death's door. You count as helpless. If left untended, you don't die if you're a PC. If you're an NPC, you have to make a Fort save every hour (DC 15) or die.

Normal coup de grace attempts still take a full round, but if you're at death's door, you can be couped as a standard action. This must be deliberate, however. Area effect spells still deal damage, but don't kill you, nor to attacks that are not intended to kill you. You have to intentionally kill a PC for him to die.

This way, if a single PC drops, he's bad off, but as long as the party prevails, he can be brought back. This keeps the same level of danger and tension as normal D&D, but removes the ridiculousness of resurrection being an expected part of adventuring life. In normal D&D, you die easily, and get raised fairly easily. In this version, you are removed from combat just as easily, and you get back to the adventure a little more easily (it just requires healing magic, instead of resurrection), but you don't continually interrupt the game at early levels by having to replace PCs who die.

The GM has to want to kill your character. He can't do it accidentally any more. This way, mean GMs can kill PCs just as they always have, but GMs who want a cohesive story with consistent characters don't have to pull their punches.

 

[Quartz]

I allow spells like Raise Dead to be cast as a standard action immediately afterwards to counter spells like Slay Living.

 

[Mortellan]

This way, if a single PC drops, he's bad off, but as long as the party prevails, he can be brought back. This keeps the same level of danger and tension as normal D&D, but removes the ridiculousness of resurrection being an expected part of adventuring life. In normal D&D, you die easily, and get raised fairly easily. In this version, you are removed from combat just as easily, and you get back to the adventure a little more easily (it just requires healing magic, instead of resurrection), but you don't continually interrupt the game at early levels by having to replace PCs who die.

I'm in agreement there. I despise Res spells and 3.x's True Res is the worst of the lot, making high level PCs effectively unkillable.

 

[Destil]

I think I like the "save or dying" option best, along with getting rid of negative HP entirely. After you're knocked below 0 (by anything, attacks, save or die spells, disintegrate et cetera) you have 1d4 rounds (rolled in secret by the DM) before you're dead. 0 is stable but disabled, as always.

Benefits: Retains the "oh my god we need to help him NOW" urgency in combat over "We've got at least a good 6 rounds, he'll be fine."
Low level parties benefit a lot from the lack of negative HP, no more needing 3 cure light wounds to get your -9 HP barbarian back in the fight.
Keeps one roll from ending a PC but retains the usefulness of spells that get around HP.

Drawbacks: Makes magical healing a little bit better, thus making the "every group should have a cleric" rule a bit stronger.
No more reducing players to a pile of dust with disintegrate. What can I say, I'm a simple man with simple pleasures.

 

[DungeonMaester]

I think I like the "save or dying" option best, along with getting rid of negative HP entirely. After you're knocked below 0 (by anything, attacks, save or die spells, disintegrate et cetera) you have 1d4 rounds (rolled in secret by the DM) before you're dead. 0 is stable but disabled, as always.

Benefits: Retains the "oh my god we need to help him NOW" urgency in combat over "We've got at least a good 6 rounds, he'll be fine."
Low level parties benefit a lot from the lack of negative HP, no more needing 3 cure light wounds to get your -9 HP barbarian back in the fight.
Keeps one roll from ending a PC but retains the usefulness of spells that get around HP.

Drawbacks: Makes magical healing a little bit better, thus making the "every group should have a cleric" rule a bit stronger.
No more reducing players to a pile of dust with disintegrate. What can I say, I'm a simple man with simple pleasures.

Thanks for the complement, I think. If you are referring to my idea/rule do you think there is room for improvement?

---Rusty

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Serious question: If death is not a risk, why roll the dice?

Why not just handwave all the fighting and say, "You meet a bunch of monsters and kill them. The loot you find is..."

 

[blargney the second]

Doom! Gloom! The end is nigh!

 

[kaomera]

Serious question: If death is not a risk, why roll the dice?

Why not just handwave all the fighting and say, "You meet a bunch of monsters and kill them. The loot you find is..."

I think the objective here is not to remove the risk of death, but rather to reduce it. Generally I view the point of keeping the risk of PC death "real" for the players to enhance the thrill when they overcome the "obstacles" I've put in front of the PCs. Some groups are Evil Knievel and they want me to put 40 buses out there. Some groups will somehow manage to crash and burn on the smallest speed-bump. Some players I really have felt the need to hand-wave it all away, and generally I end up having to not game with them.

I try to avoid throwing chances for PC death from a single die roll at my players. I'd prefer not to have a PC death every session, or even very frequently at all. Aside from the relative ease of recovering from such things in 3.x, killing off PCs too frequently is the biggest way (IMHO) of making death lose it's sting.

 

[Destil]

Serious question: If death is not a risk, why roll the dice?

Why not just handwave all the fighting and say, "You meet a bunch of monsters and kill them. The loot you find is..."

The idea is not to remove death. In fact the idea is to make death meaningful. In high level D&D death is a status aliment that's just removed with the right spell by the books. The number of save or die effects necessitates this. Thus the general desire to give death some of it's kick back (I think it's a bit of an unwritten comment that everyone who agrees with these changes considers casting spells like "raise dead" to be taken as a much more serious act within the campaign world than a cone of cold, plane shift, prying eyes or spell resistance).

 

[hexgrid]

Serious question: If death is not a risk, why roll the dice?

Why not just handwave all the fighting and say, "You meet a bunch of monsters and kill them. The loot you find is..."

Because death is not the only way to be defeated, and mere survival is not the only measure of success. And in any case, there's more to than game than winning and losing.