Normally being reduced to 0 HP causes the character to fall uncounciness and make death saving throws.
This new mechanic modifies the experience for players by adding a high-risk-high-reward combat option.
Once reduced to zero HP the player may fall uncounciness as usual or elect to fight on.
Taking the fight on option immidately applies 1 level of exhaustion to the character. In addition, anytime the character takes damage the DM will apply an appropriate lingering wound. Lastly, each round the character will make death saving throws as normal but at disadvantage.
The player may fall uncounciness at the start of their turn before they take any other actions. Doing so ends the effect and they may make death saving throws normally afterwards.
Normally being reduced to 0 HP causes the character to fall uncounciness and make death saving throws.
This new mechanic modifies the experience for players by adding a high-risk-high-reward combat option.
Once reduced to zero HP the player may fall uncounciness as usual or elect to fight on.
Taking the fight on option immidately applies 1 level of exhaustion to the character. In addition, anytime the character takes damage the DM will apply an appropriate lingering wound. Lastly, each round the character will make death saving throws as normal but at disadvantage.
The player may fall uncounciness at the start of their turn before they take any other actions. Doing so ends the effect and they may make death saving throws normally afterwards.
So the existing mechanic still exists, but now there are extra layers on top of it, permanent player based penalties and punishments?
How is the "least convoluted". It's literally more complicated.
Here's the least convoluted death's door mechanic:
Once you reach 0 HP, your party has ONE round to heal you with a spell that restores hit points. If they don't, you die. If you get hit while downed again, you die. Normal revivify/spare the dying rules apply.
Now, would I play the above rule? God no, its awful, but it is actually less convoluted than the standard rule.
It is the least convoluted version of the, "Deaths Door" option that I have found, not the, "Dying Condition."
It's purpose is not to simplify the game, obviously because it adds to rather than reduces the default dying condition. Player death in 5e takes agency away from the player once they reach zero HP. I like the standard dying mechanic as it gives players a chance to stabilize. But players lose control of their character, helpless, and can't talk in the dying state. The purpose of this option is to return agency to players during an important and dramatic moment in the characters saga.
The "fight on" option returns control of their character while they are dying but for a price. This rule is about player agency. What would you do if you were knocking on Deaths Door, give into uncounciness or fight on? *que rock music*
D&D already has a system for that: the fact that you can continue to act without penalty until you hit 0 HP. Many RPGs have cumulative penalties that hit your character the more damage they accrue. I mean, yeah, dying sucks but that's kind of the point. If you get a sucking chest wound you're not going to be able to keep on fighting no matter how much heroic willpower you've got. Yes, you lose agency, but lots of things cause you to lose agency. If you fail your save after being hit with Flesh To Stone, are you going to try and argue that you should still be allowed to act after being turned into a lawn ornament?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
D&D already has a system for that: the fact that you can continue to act without penalty until you hit 0 HP. Many RPGs have cumulative penalties that hit your character the more damage they accrue. I mean, yeah, dying sucks but that's kind of the point. If you get a sucking chest wound you're not going to be able to keep on fighting no matter how much heroic willpower you've got. Yes, you lose agency, but lots of things cause you to lose agency. If you fail your save after being hit with Flesh To Stone, are you going to try and argue that you should still be allowed to act after being turned into a lawn ornament?
Not only that, but it's a cooperative game. Your loss of agency increases the rest of the parties. It creates tension. Every edition of dnd takes "agency" away on player death. It should. They are dead. What we are doing here is just saying to the player hey, you get to negate a mechanic by introducing a new one. Not only that, but a lot of "lingering" penalties introduces more mechanics which then slows down combat and rp at later stages.
I get what you want, but more options aren't always good options.
I like your point, that the dying condition is a consequence of taking too much damage and that it does not need to be expanded upon. But I am not arguing that people who are satisfied with fainting after taking enough damage should use theDeeaths Door mechanic instead. But I do think this is a good idea for DMs and Players that want to spice up their games and punish players for dropping to 0 hp, without putting them in time out. I like your sucking chest wound analogy, but it is a fallacious comparison because people with sucking chest wounds do not get back up after a short rest, they take weeks of care before they heal up. Because this is a fantasy game, players who reach zero HP suffer no long term effects from the damage by the default rule set. While it does not make sense to compare fantasy characters to gritty realism I do not mind it. Game of Thrones was popular for a reason.
You have some valid points but you argue the player agency should be taken away upon death which is not something I addressed. My argument was that players should not lose agency during the dying state. In the dying state the player character is still alive but helpless and must roll three saving throws to determine if they die or stabilize. Additionally, why do you believe that the Deaths Door mechanic negates the dying state? Of a player chooses to to use the mechanic they remain in the dying state, take 1 point of exhaustion, receive a lingering wound from attacks, and have disadvantage on death saving throws. If anything the Deaths Door mechanic increases the dying condition penalty in exchange for being able to act. It certainly doesn't negate the effect as the consequences of using the mechanic are worse in the long run than just passing out.
You have some valid points but you argue the player agency should be taken away upon death which is not something I addressed. My argument was that players should not lose agency during the dying state. In the dying state the player character is still alive but helpless and must roll three saving throws to determine if they die or stabilize. Additionally, why do you believe that the Deaths Door mechanic negates the dying state? Of a player chooses to to use the mechanic they remain in the dying state, take 1 point of exhaustion, receive a lingering wound from attacks, and have disadvantage on death saving throws. If anything the Deaths Door mechanic increases the dying condition penalty in exchange for being able to act. It certainly doesn't negate the effect as the consequences of using the mechanic are worse in the long run than just passing out.
You amend your original statement by saying in the 2nd post that " This rule is about player agency. " So now everything in the first post should be viewed through that lens.
It allows the player to retreat to a friendly position to get healed instantly, or drink a potion which now negates the entire dying condition. You're essentially giving the player "Ok, what is more beneficial to you in this instance, to just roll the dice, or do you feel the need to "push on", take a penalty, but potentially save yourself.
Also, in my games, if the player can do it, the enemies can as well. The PHB has the suggestion that most enemies don't get a death save, but important enemies do. With this mechanic, I'd argue that every enemy would push on and continue fighting since the only other option was total annihilation.
With the original mechanic, it transfers ownership to the party for the co-operative game. That tension is important and being able to create it for others is a lovely roleplay mechanic. Taking away that tension for others because you can just kip up and waddle to your healer going "Please, I'm dying here" to me isn't a good mechanic. We also have this concept of lingering wounds, and now the DM is going to make permanent alterations to a character until they are cured.
While it does not make sense to compare fantasy characters to gritty realism I do not mind it
I do, and 5th wasn't designed around it. Specific things have specific lingering effects, and that's fine because as a DM it is a defined rule. The rules after the fact are honestly my biggest pet peeve with this. How are we going to adjudicate missing fingers, a torn ACL, being blind in one eye, etc. How are we going to adjudicate this for five different characters all at once. What about enemies? Are enemies just gonna stroll in being their perfect best self while my party of battle hardened adventures is going in with peg legs , eye patches and hook hands? If they don't, now we have to worry about two competing lingering injury tables every single piece of combat.
At the end, you're gonna run your table how you want, and honestly I'm totally down for that. If your table wants gritty realism, have fun. Truly. I'm down your D&D experience being what you want it to be. These are my observations though on how it would impact gameplay further down the road, and why I wouldn't be so quick to jump on it.
I appreciate you playing the role of devils advocate for the original rule set, because it makes for a good argument but I worry that you may have the impression that I am some how criticizing the basic rules of the game. If you feel this way, rest assured that I respect the balance of the core rule set and am not advocating that everyone abandond them. Just to clarify, I am sharing an idea with DMs and players who might enjoy them or improve them. If you are not one of those players or DMs then we have little else in the future to discuss.
If you beleive that my clarification was an amendment then we are using a different definition for the word. An amendment makes an alteration while a clarification elaborates where needed. The differance is that the fundamental statement changes in the former but does not in the latter.
I understand your point about negating the dying condition that it allows, Co-operative play and the upkeep associated with lingering effects. You state that if a player character can act freely while in the dying state and they have access to healing then the condition is negated. I can see how it is easy to miss but your statement contradicts its self because healing is a finite resource that must still be expended to end the dying condition. The Deaths Door mechanic does not negate the condition its self, rather it compounds it if the player elects to use it because it imposes exhaustion everytime it is used. Short term gain for a long term penalty.
But if your biggest pet peeve is dealing with extra mechanics then I am releived because this rule is simply not for you and that is OK. D&D is convoluted enough as it is already for most people. This rule set is for people looking to spice-up their game with a new mechanic that turns a death watch into a heroic and tense struggle to survive.
Whenever a player loses control of their character they have no agency. Following the rules of the game does not detract from player agency because the rules are centered around player choice. What choice does a player have while their character is in the dying state? None, they simply roll the dice and hope that they regain control of their character.
I think that D&D is more fun when there is a balance between risk and reward and when players have meaningful choices. The risk of death is fundamental to any combat scenario but D&D is not a one combat game to me. Perhaps that is the differance between our concerns. Just because my players survive a single encounter it dies not mean that they can simply rest and regain all of their lost resources. If a DM is a one combat DM then I would not recommend this rules as it's benefits are found when a DM follows the recommended per day encounters found in the DMG.
D&D is a cooperative game. Sometimes there are situations where you get hit with something that temporarily removes your agency as a player, that's just part of the game. At that point you can either wait it out and hope the other people you're playing with will assist you, or you can roll up a new character. Player agency is not some sort of right that's guaranteed 100% of the time- sometimes you get hit in the face with a battle axe and take a little dirt nap, hoping that the cleric will bother casting Healing Word on you. Sometimes you fail a save vs a Hold Person spell. Sometimes, you get grappled. We get it, you don't like being unable to act while dying, nobody does. But making some sort of convoluted house rule to let yourself act anyway is not the solution, it just creates suspicion that someone's trying to make rules to give themselves an invincible Mary Sue character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I would personally stick to the current rules. They're fair and easy to understand. And it also means I don't have to review the options, like for certain Barbarians, that alter what players can do at 0 HP and I don't have to re-adjust encounter challenge ratings (which is a system that factors the options players have at 0 HP) either.
I can understand people wanting to increase the challenge of death like imposing limits/setbacks if players are healed from 0 HP multiple times in a single combat or making resurrection less of a guarantee (like how they handle it on Critical Role). But I don't see the need to change what can happen at 0 HP.
Also, I agree that this makes things more convoluted not less. You are not actually replacing anything - just adding on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
What about Enchantment spells? Hold/charm/dominate person spells type abilities all work on PC and NPC alike. Mind flayers, succubi, beholders, fey and more have mind affecting abilities. Are you removing them from the game?
What about when players murder a noble and get arrested? Thrown in jail?
What happens when enemies use Counter spell?
When people sit down to play, they are agreeing to play by the rules. It's not a removal of agency, because the choice was made to play by the rules in the first place. All player agency happens within the framework of the rules in the first place.
Agency is certainly not a right, I do not know where you got that idea from. But it would be irresponsible of the DM to not consider how the players will feel when they set off a trap that they failed to detect or get ambushed by mind flares who take control of their characters. I think we can all agree that playing D&D is about cooperative fun. If you and your table enjoys being stun locked for three rounds before death then there is certainly nothing wrong with that. If you want to critique my rule because it is overly complicated, then I would love to hear how you could simplify it while retaining the intent. However if you want to criticize the idea that increased player agency detracts from the game, we have nothing else to discuss.
I did not suggest that any mechanic was removed from the game. It is a common misunderstanding that the charmed condition makes the PC a mindless puppet but that simply is not true if you look it up.
And how does being in jail remove player agency? Some of my best games started off in a jail cell. We had to trick the guard into getting close to the seductive bard so that we could use slide of hand and get his keys. That was a great experience. You know what wasn't? When we were ambushed by a party of succubus in a brothel. Half the party failed their saving throws and had to sit on the side lines for hours while the battle played out. Two of the players just left the game out of boredom.
I don't know who you are arguing with but I never mentioned anything about removing mechanics. I just want to be a responsible DM and look out for the players that get put on the side lines.
Do me a favor friend an reply to the person that is actually advocating that we remove dominate person from the game.
I don't think it's a matter of simplifying - I'd rather not have it. If you have been damaged enough to the point of dropping to 0 HP then you should go down. I don't see what is wrong with that? This possibility is what makes you care about your hit points and think about protecting yourself. If you have the option to just ignore being at 0 HP and keep fighting then it significantly cheapens it and makes you care less about your hit points (and might piss off the party's Zealot Barbarian as this is literally their subclass focus).
The threat of being at 0 HP and unable to do anything increases tension for the player and the others too. You might have to change strategies as you now do less in a round, you have a time limit to get the character stable before the enemy has the chance to finish them or they fail the death saving throws. The player still gets to roll the die on their turn - and on a Nat 20 they're up, awake and at 1 HP. Or they could get a Nat 1 and be so much closer to dying.
Dying is already difficult in D&D, since you have ample opportunity to get stable or healed. Yet there's just enough to make things tense. This is intentional.
My critique of your rule is not based on it being overcomplicated but rather in it is entirely unnecessary, requires more work on the DM to balance things and against the spirit of 5th edition (simplifying the system to be easier to balance/adapt/learn).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Cyb3r, I have enjoyed your feedback but if you are not interested in a mechanic like this then why are you bothering with this post? I did not say that people should or will use this mechanic, so I do not see why you decided to take a stand against it. I understand how you feel and I can imagine many other reasons that people may not like this mechanic and I am perfectly fine with that. What I would like is some constructive criticism because I like the mechanic and enjoy using it. If all you have is destructive criticism then I think you made your point, I thank you for it, but there seems to be nothing else for us to discuss about this. I hope you are well and look foward to talking to you about something else in the future fellow role-player.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Deaths Door, a 0 HP option
So the existing mechanic still exists, but now there are extra layers on top of it, permanent player based penalties and punishments?
How is the "least convoluted". It's literally more complicated.
Here's the least convoluted death's door mechanic:
Once you reach 0 HP, your party has ONE round to heal you with a spell that restores hit points. If they don't, you die. If you get hit while downed again, you die. Normal revivify/spare the dying rules apply.
Now, would I play the above rule? God no, its awful, but it is actually less convoluted than the standard rule.
It is the least convoluted version of the, "Deaths Door" option that I have found, not the, "Dying Condition."
It's purpose is not to simplify the game, obviously because it adds to rather than reduces the default dying condition. Player death in 5e takes agency away from the player once they reach zero HP. I like the standard dying mechanic as it gives players a chance to stabilize. But players lose control of their character, helpless, and can't talk in the dying state. The purpose of this option is to return agency to players during an important and dramatic moment in the characters saga.
The "fight on" option returns control of their character while they are dying but for a price. This rule is about player agency. What would you do if you were knocking on Deaths Door, give into uncounciness or fight on? *que rock music*
D&D already has a system for that: the fact that you can continue to act without penalty until you hit 0 HP. Many RPGs have cumulative penalties that hit your character the more damage they accrue. I mean, yeah, dying sucks but that's kind of the point. If you get a sucking chest wound you're not going to be able to keep on fighting no matter how much heroic willpower you've got. Yes, you lose agency, but lots of things cause you to lose agency. If you fail your save after being hit with Flesh To Stone, are you going to try and argue that you should still be allowed to act after being turned into a lawn ornament?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Not only that, but it's a cooperative game. Your loss of agency increases the rest of the parties. It creates tension. Every edition of dnd takes "agency" away on player death. It should. They are dead. What we are doing here is just saying to the player hey, you get to negate a mechanic by introducing a new one. Not only that, but a lot of "lingering" penalties introduces more mechanics which then slows down combat and rp at later stages.
I get what you want, but more options aren't always good options.
I like your point, that the dying condition is a consequence of taking too much damage and that it does not need to be expanded upon. But I am not arguing that people who are satisfied with fainting after taking enough damage should use theDeeaths Door mechanic instead. But I do think this is a good idea for DMs and Players that want to spice up their games and punish players for dropping to 0 hp, without putting them in time out. I like your sucking chest wound analogy, but it is a fallacious comparison because people with sucking chest wounds do not get back up after a short rest, they take weeks of care before they heal up. Because this is a fantasy game, players who reach zero HP suffer no long term effects from the damage by the default rule set. While it does not make sense to compare fantasy characters to gritty realism I do not mind it. Game of Thrones was popular for a reason.
You have some valid points but you argue the player agency should be taken away upon death which is not something I addressed. My argument was that players should not lose agency during the dying state. In the dying state the player character is still alive but helpless and must roll three saving throws to determine if they die or stabilize. Additionally, why do you believe that the Deaths Door mechanic negates the dying state? Of a player chooses to to use the mechanic they remain in the dying state, take 1 point of exhaustion, receive a lingering wound from attacks, and have disadvantage on death saving throws. If anything the Deaths Door mechanic increases the dying condition penalty in exchange for being able to act. It certainly doesn't negate the effect as the consequences of using the mechanic are worse in the long run than just passing out.
You amend your original statement by saying in the 2nd post that " This rule is about player agency. " So now everything in the first post should be viewed through that lens.
It allows the player to retreat to a friendly position to get healed instantly, or drink a potion which now negates the entire dying condition. You're essentially giving the player "Ok, what is more beneficial to you in this instance, to just roll the dice, or do you feel the need to "push on", take a penalty, but potentially save yourself.
Also, in my games, if the player can do it, the enemies can as well. The PHB has the suggestion that most enemies don't get a death save, but important enemies do. With this mechanic, I'd argue that every enemy would push on and continue fighting since the only other option was total annihilation.
With the original mechanic, it transfers ownership to the party for the co-operative game. That tension is important and being able to create it for others is a lovely roleplay mechanic. Taking away that tension for others because you can just kip up and waddle to your healer going "Please, I'm dying here" to me isn't a good mechanic. We also have this concept of lingering wounds, and now the DM is going to make permanent alterations to a character until they are cured.
I do, and 5th wasn't designed around it. Specific things have specific lingering effects, and that's fine because as a DM it is a defined rule. The rules after the fact are honestly my biggest pet peeve with this. How are we going to adjudicate missing fingers, a torn ACL, being blind in one eye, etc. How are we going to adjudicate this for five different characters all at once. What about enemies? Are enemies just gonna stroll in being their perfect best self while my party of battle hardened adventures is going in with peg legs , eye patches and hook hands? If they don't, now we have to worry about two competing lingering injury tables every single piece of combat.
At the end, you're gonna run your table how you want, and honestly I'm totally down for that. If your table wants gritty realism, have fun. Truly. I'm down your D&D experience being what you want it to be. These are my observations though on how it would impact gameplay further down the road, and why I wouldn't be so quick to jump on it.
How... is dying "removing player agency?" Player agency is the ability to control the choices and actions of the character.
Dying isn't removing player agency. Its a consequence of the choices made through player agency. Player agency does not mean "free from consequence."
You might as well say "following the rules of the game takes away player agency."
I appreciate you playing the role of devils advocate for the original rule set, because it makes for a good argument but I worry that you may have the impression that I am some how criticizing the basic rules of the game. If you feel this way, rest assured that I respect the balance of the core rule set and am not advocating that everyone abandond them. Just to clarify, I am sharing an idea with DMs and players who might enjoy them or improve them. If you are not one of those players or DMs then we have little else in the future to discuss.
If you beleive that my clarification was an amendment then we are using a different definition for the word. An amendment makes an alteration while a clarification elaborates where needed. The differance is that the fundamental statement changes in the former but does not in the latter.
I understand your point about negating the dying condition that it allows, Co-operative play and the upkeep associated with lingering effects. You state that if a player character can act freely while in the dying state and they have access to healing then the condition is negated. I can see how it is easy to miss but your statement contradicts its self because healing is a finite resource that must still be expended to end the dying condition. The Deaths Door mechanic does not negate the condition its self, rather it compounds it if the player elects to use it because it imposes exhaustion everytime it is used. Short term gain for a long term penalty.
But if your biggest pet peeve is dealing with extra mechanics then I am releived because this rule is simply not for you and that is OK. D&D is convoluted enough as it is already for most people. This rule set is for people looking to spice-up their game with a new mechanic that turns a death watch into a heroic and tense struggle to survive.
May you be well.
Whenever a player loses control of their character they have no agency. Following the rules of the game does not detract from player agency because the rules are centered around player choice. What choice does a player have while their character is in the dying state? None, they simply roll the dice and hope that they regain control of their character.
I think that D&D is more fun when there is a balance between risk and reward and when players have meaningful choices. The risk of death is fundamental to any combat scenario but D&D is not a one combat game to me. Perhaps that is the differance between our concerns. Just because my players survive a single encounter it dies not mean that they can simply rest and regain all of their lost resources. If a DM is a one combat DM then I would not recommend this rules as it's benefits are found when a DM follows the recommended per day encounters found in the DMG.
D&D is a cooperative game. Sometimes there are situations where you get hit with something that temporarily removes your agency as a player, that's just part of the game. At that point you can either wait it out and hope the other people you're playing with will assist you, or you can roll up a new character. Player agency is not some sort of right that's guaranteed 100% of the time- sometimes you get hit in the face with a battle axe and take a little dirt nap, hoping that the cleric will bother casting Healing Word on you. Sometimes you fail a save vs a Hold Person spell. Sometimes, you get grappled. We get it, you don't like being unable to act while dying, nobody does. But making some sort of convoluted house rule to let yourself act anyway is not the solution, it just creates suspicion that someone's trying to make rules to give themselves an invincible Mary Sue character.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I would personally stick to the current rules. They're fair and easy to understand. And it also means I don't have to review the options, like for certain Barbarians, that alter what players can do at 0 HP and I don't have to re-adjust encounter challenge ratings (which is a system that factors the options players have at 0 HP) either.
I can understand people wanting to increase the challenge of death like imposing limits/setbacks if players are healed from 0 HP multiple times in a single combat or making resurrection less of a guarantee (like how they handle it on Critical Role). But I don't see the need to change what can happen at 0 HP.
Also, I agree that this makes things more convoluted not less. You are not actually replacing anything - just adding on.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
What about Enchantment spells? Hold/charm/dominate person spells type abilities all work on PC and NPC alike. Mind flayers, succubi, beholders, fey and more have mind affecting abilities. Are you removing them from the game?
What about when players murder a noble and get arrested? Thrown in jail?
What happens when enemies use Counter spell?
When people sit down to play, they are agreeing to play by the rules. It's not a removal of agency, because the choice was made to play by the rules in the first place. All player agency happens within the framework of the rules in the first place.
Agency is certainly not a right, I do not know where you got that idea from. But it would be irresponsible of the DM to not consider how the players will feel when they set off a trap that they failed to detect or get ambushed by mind flares who take control of their characters. I think we can all agree that playing D&D is about cooperative fun. If you and your table enjoys being stun locked for three rounds before death then there is certainly nothing wrong with that. If you want to critique my rule because it is overly complicated, then I would love to hear how you could simplify it while retaining the intent. However if you want to criticize the idea that increased player agency detracts from the game, we have nothing else to discuss.
May you be well.
I did not suggest that any mechanic was removed from the game. It is a common misunderstanding that the charmed condition makes the PC a mindless puppet but that simply is not true if you look it up.
And how does being in jail remove player agency? Some of my best games started off in a jail cell. We had to trick the guard into getting close to the seductive bard so that we could use slide of hand and get his keys. That was a great experience. You know what wasn't? When we were ambushed by a party of succubus in a brothel. Half the party failed their saving throws and had to sit on the side lines for hours while the battle played out. Two of the players just left the game out of boredom.
I don't know who you are arguing with but I never mentioned anything about removing mechanics. I just want to be a responsible DM and look out for the players that get put on the side lines.
Do me a favor friend an reply to the person that is actually advocating that we remove dominate person from the game.
May you be well.
I don't think it's a matter of simplifying - I'd rather not have it. If you have been damaged enough to the point of dropping to 0 HP then you should go down. I don't see what is wrong with that? This possibility is what makes you care about your hit points and think about protecting yourself. If you have the option to just ignore being at 0 HP and keep fighting then it significantly cheapens it and makes you care less about your hit points (and might piss off the party's Zealot Barbarian as this is literally their subclass focus).
The threat of being at 0 HP and unable to do anything increases tension for the player and the others too. You might have to change strategies as you now do less in a round, you have a time limit to get the character stable before the enemy has the chance to finish them or they fail the death saving throws. The player still gets to roll the die on their turn - and on a Nat 20 they're up, awake and at 1 HP. Or they could get a Nat 1 and be so much closer to dying.
Dying is already difficult in D&D, since you have ample opportunity to get stable or healed. Yet there's just enough to make things tense. This is intentional.
My critique of your rule is not based on it being overcomplicated but rather in it is entirely unnecessary, requires more work on the DM to balance things and against the spirit of 5th edition (simplifying the system to be easier to balance/adapt/learn).
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Who said anything about traps or ambushes? You're the first to bring them up.
Because you keep complaining about how dropping to 0 HP causes you to lose it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Cyb3r, I have enjoyed your feedback but if you are not interested in a mechanic like this then why are you bothering with this post? I did not say that people should or will use this mechanic, so I do not see why you decided to take a stand against it. I understand how you feel and I can imagine many other reasons that people may not like this mechanic and I am perfectly fine with that. What I would like is some constructive criticism because I like the mechanic and enjoy using it. If all you have is destructive criticism then I think you made your point, I thank you for it, but there seems to be nothing else for us to discuss about this. I hope you are well and look foward to talking to you about something else in the future fellow role-player.