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