D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[Thomas Shey]

That's pretty impressive.

Was referring to the population that did not succumb to shock/blood loss during combat. If they're still pretty high functioning and able to capably protect themselves (especially in melee) that takes any remaining air out of the whole death spiral logic (at least for earth humans).

Barring the extreme cases of disabling trauma or immediate death, yes; that was the point. People have kept fighting effectively with a dozen small caliber bullets in them, three relatively deep stab wounds, or (in a couple cases) a .50 caliber machine gun round in them.

Impairment within the context of a single combat exchange is vastly overstated in death spiral games. I can only speculate why.

 

[Garthanos]

Barring the extreme cases of disabling trauma or immediate death, yes; that was the point. People have kept fighting effectively with a dozen small caliber bullets in them, three relatively deep stab wounds, or (in a couple cases) a .50 caliber machine gun round in them.

Impairment within the context of a single combat exchange is vastly overstated in death spiral games. I can only speculate why.

I speculate that it relates to the myth of the hero... resisting and ignoring injury is supposed to be only something the hero does... ie not something that is a normal evolved trait in humans.

 

[Lanefan]

Which sounds like a good idea but then you start to get into the 'HP are meat' debate

I'm not sure about that, as even if most hit points represent fatigue rather than meat all of what I've been suggesting still holds true.

and I don't know if you want to go down that route? It's not like you can guaratee not to take any hits, there's gotta at least be some thresholds going on here. You'll also end up with way more wack-a-mole healing.

That doesn't follow. Whack-a-mole healing only happens when someone goes down at 0 then gets healed and gets up again at 1 or more. In fact I think there'd be way less whack-a-mole healing in that players would want to keep their characters a long way above 0.

Now if you mean there'll be more in-combat healing in general, perhaps that's true.

Death spirals are a good incentive to avoid combat all together, but a lot of people LIKE combat so you gotta make the rest of the game more fun. I can see where that would be attractive to someone used to 1e where fighting was basically failing.

Fighting should be the last resort, not the first one, particularly for any PCs that want to call themselves Good.

 

[Lanefan]

Except that's a losing proposition, as you'll want to send the enemy into THEIR death spiral faster. Advancing the game state, to use TCG speak, will always be more desirable and the more efficient. You won't see people take defensive actions, you'll see them take feats to be able to snipe opponent from 100 years away and hit as fast as possible. You'll end up with a bunch of Skyrim Stealth Archer.

Now that would be one hell of a shot - not only hit the target but hit it a century back or foward in time.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Fighting should be the last resort, not the first one, particularly for any PCs that want to call themselves Good.

I think that one of the draws of fantasy games is often the more simplistic and child-like depiction of good vs evil, wherein good guys beat up bad guys because that's what good guys do.

Obviously, in the real world things aren't so simple. To even know where to begin we often have to examine the philosophical or religious lens through which an individual views the world. Something that is good from one perspective may be evil from the perspective of a different moral framework.

Is barging into the warren of a bunch of goblins who were minding their own business, slaughtering them, and taking their stuff, the act of someone good? From a real world perspective it's extremely colonialist, and that's arguably the most positive thing I can say about it. But from a simpler perspective they were "bad guys" who were going to commit evil at some point and therefore stopping them is a good act. Even if, here in the real world, we recognize that as overly simplistic.

At my table we're all adults who know better, but for a few hours a week we like to forget about the complexities of the real world and return to a more simplistic and child-like view of what good is. So we don't generally worry about that stuff. There's nothing wrong with a little escapism.

The point being that good, particularly in the context of a fantasy game, is relative. And that good characters can absolutely shoot first and ask questions later, depending on the style of game you're playing.

 

[Mort]

that's the thing, D&D allows me to be hit by 3 arrows, get breathed on by a dragon (taking full damage) and fall 30ft landing on my back... and if I have 7hp left I have no penalties to attack or skills. I am as good then as I am after a month of rest at everything I do.

The alternative, is a death spiral.

And (IMO) death spirals are the worst. I'd much rather have a bit of abstract (un)reality than to have to deal with death spirals in play.

 

[Mort]

Hot take warning.....

Indeed; and that's a significant problem now and, to a slightly lesser extent, always has been.

Thing is, any means of solving it that's the least bit penalizing to characters who are running low on h.p. will immediately draw widespread howls of protest in which the words "death spiral" will figure prominently.

And yet, a death spiral is - or should be - the whole damn point! The more hurt or fatigued you are, the less effective you are. Don't want to get into a potential death spiral? Then don't lose the hit points in the first place.

Far too often it seems the only hit point anyone cares about is the one that takes them from +1 to 0. Ideally, every hit point should have importance, even the one that takes you from full to one less than full.

From a "realism" perspective sure, but from a "fun" perspective, yuck.

Death spirals unevenly target certain styles of play. If they (death spirals) are implemented, those will be avoided. Which again, is fine from a "realism" perspective but awful from a "fun" perspective for anyone who likes those styles.

 

[Mort]

Fighting should be the last resort, not the first one, particularly for any PCs that want to call themselves Good.

This is a style of play that D&D has never encouraged, certainly not with mechanics. Suddenly encouraging it would be a RADICAL departure and world likely require a massive tonal shift in adventures and the rules themselves.

 

[Composer99]

Where I'd rather every hit point count, not just the last one.

Every hit point does count, because every hit point is one more hit point between you and losing that last one.

---

Broadly speaking, I think if I wanted to encourage a "combat as the last resort" approach to a game, I'd want either lower hit point totals and sudden death at 0 hit points (maybe a single death save), or a general expectation that there are always loads and loads of enemies about - if you want to start a fight you're going to get swarmed (*).

(*) Although in that case having a "swarm"-equivalent stat block for bigger creatures would be necessary to reduce GM workload and table time spent on resolving monster actions in combat. ENWorld's A5E has such a thing, for instance.

I would not, in any event, want a death spiral.

(That being stated, in my Fantasy Heartbreaker™, I have planned a variant rule that adds a death spiral - at least for PCs, although it does it by adding what amounts to a second hit point pool functionally equivalent to "Wound Points" from d20 Star Wars and the 3.5 UA.)

 

[Bill Zebub]

Impairment within the context of a single combat exchange is vastly overstated in death spiral games. I can only speculate why.

Hatred of martials and corporate greed, one would assume.