While I have DMed a few campaigns over the past 2 years, I am still learning the game mechanics and finding new ways to make my story and combat more interesting. One of the elements that makes combat so exciting is winning against battle against a worthy foe and cheating the ever-looming possibility of perma-death.
However, I found that the game mechanics make it difficult to kill a PC. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to kill off my characters but I do want to understand the game design for more meaningful encounters. The battles my characters say they enjoyed most involved me heavily fudging rolls to hit the PCs (instilling that fear of death) and extend the life of the standard monsters (to get more turns/rounds), which makes me think… do I really understand the mechanics.
Combat mechanics and tactics aside, it seems difficult to bring a PC to Perma-death (unless you hit that one PC with everything you got and hit them while they are down). Below are the factors I am talking about:
Deathsaves: Perma-death requires 3 failed saves, which at one save per turn take 3 full turns (assuming no successes, Crits, no further injury, etc).
Healing: potions and healing spells can automatically restore HP and brings a PC out of the unconscious state.
Monster AC/HP – Low AC and HP can limit a targeted monster to 1-2 rounds before going down.
End of Combat – A player can either finish their death saves, or (more likely) have another PC stabilize that character.
Am I missing something on the topic or is that how the rules were intended?
TL;DR: Is perma-death meant to be rare in the game or do I just misunderstand the rules?
That said, I have introduced a homebrew exhaustion rule that basically gives one level of exhaustion per unconscious state which needs a full rest per level to remove. This adds more consequence to going to 0 HP.
One comment I will make - noting that you indicated exciting combat, but required fudging attack rolls of enemies to hit the PCs - try to bring enemies to the encounter that do more than swing a sword, shoot a bow, or smash with a club.
PC's generally have good to excellent AC - or ways of achieving such AC (Shield comes to mind, as does Mage Armor). The enemies need to beat a pretty high DC just to do damage to them. An interesting tactic that can make even the most heavily armored paladin PC feel quite naked is to perform actions that do damage or deal negative effects by targeting the PC's saving throws (typically mediocre) rather than their AC (typically pretty good). Nothing scares a raging barbarian with damage resistance more than psychic damage or Wisdom saving throws to resist debilitating effects.
For other tactics that can surprise even veteran DnD players check out:
The Monsters Know What They're Doing: Combat Tactics for Dungeon Masters - by Keith Ammann
One comment I will make - noting that you indicated exciting combat, but required fudging attack rolls of enemies to hit the PCs - try to bring enemies to the encounter that do more than swing a sword, shoot a bow, or smash with a club.
Or just upgrade the opposition. Remember, if you have only one encounter per day, you have to go way over the encounter budget on that one encounter.
I agree with Lyxen here. 5e is set up to be very hard to actually kill a Character.
Relatively easy access to resurrection magic ( assuming the default setting ) makes even the occasional combat death fixable.
Throw in the fact that the current D&D culture encourages that encounters always be combat balanced for the Party ( i.e. it is always possible for the Party to win ), and there's very little reason Players need to fear Character death.
I would suggest that it's not the fear of Death which adds tension so much as fear of failure. There are other forms of failure in Combat other than Death. NPCs they are trying to protect can be killed or captured. Downed comrades ( stabilized or not ), can be captured ( imagine the Party's reaction if the Wizard went down, was then pounced on by a Monster, who then ran off with their unconscious comrade! ). Bad guys can escape, etc. The options for failure depend on the Party's goal in the encounter. If their goals are more varied than "kill the monsters", the forms of possible failure are likewise more varied.
I don't very much like the idea fudging dice and HP totals to prolong Combat - I think there's better ways to design encounters so that possible Combat is more dramatic and interesting.
But if you really wanted to introduce the possibility of combat deaths to the Party, you could always eliminate Death Saves - that would make combat a whole lot more tense.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I agree with Lyxen here. 5e is set up to be very hard to actually kill a Character.
Relatively easy access to resurrection magic ( assuming the default setting ) makes even the occasional combat death fixable.
Throw in the fact that the current D&D culture encourages that encounters always be combat balanced for the Party ( i.e. it is always possible for the Party to win ), and there's very little reason Players need to fear Character death.
Not to mention the idiocy of "failing forward". Or that death shouldn't be the end. But a new beginning where the PC can be sent back by their god. At some point you just need to let the PC die already instead of giving it life-line after life line. The more recent cultural shift within DnD is not that great in my opinion. Roleplay is lessened and replaced by amateur theater hour.
However killing PC's can be done.
As example at level 3. Give your encounters environmental hazards. Or special actions that occur at initiative 20. For example an area charm effect from a Gulthias Tree. Players need to figure out where the effect comes from. While also dealing with some hazards. Such as the tree psychically telling the charmed creatures to protect the tree against those causing it harm. Meaning that the Ranger killed the druid. And the barbarian had the cleric at death's door. Leading to some nice pvp. And it also can lead to some really neat roleplaying moments. Such as the ranger, upon arriving in the city of the killed druid, faces her family. Being all honorable and noble he offered his sword to the father. To cut of his head if the father so decided. Which lead to a nice social situation with some real stakes.
Another example would be to have a necromancer lab with some glass cilinders. Necromancer breaks the glass to release undead, but also some poisonous explosive gas. The gas spreads further into the chamber each round. Getting closer and closer to the torches. What to do? if it explodes an entire city block in the city will go up in flames. They also wanted to get the necromancer out for interrogation. Stakes and drama right there. And the tabaxi that ran in with feline speed to grab the necromancer. He had to deal with the zombies that hit hard with their homebrewed attacks in opportunity attacks.
Lure in PC's in a room where they end up kissing a succubus. Especially if its a barbarian or some such with a low save to it. Have a cleric with 20+ AC. Let them use it with darts, arrows and melee attacks bouncing off them. When it makes sense. Just have an Intellect Devourer or Hell Hound corner that PC. See how they handle that kind of a threat. I'm sure they'll be terrified and can die.
Dragons are a great source of killing PC's as well. However a lot of DM's complain that Dragons are underwhelming. That is because those DM's are afraid to play them properly and pull the trigger. Breath attack will cause dex saves which a lot of PC's aren't that great at. You can then grapple the weaker PC's and fly up in the air while attacking them with advantage using the tail. When unconscious drop the PC as a free action and go after another PC with a, hopefully, recharged breath attack. PC falling is 550ft per round and 60ft if feather fall is cast on it. Still substantial damage even when the character is conscious and otherwise an automatic failed death save. Not even mentioning the multi-attack when a PC has already taken a bit of damage. And for gods sake just hit the PC with all those attacks. Don't spread them around to other PC's. Unless you're one of those DM's that complains about how underwhelming the dragon is. At that point you lost all right to your opinion in this case.
As to the homebrew rule the OP uses. I'd rather use Exhaustion upon a character that got revived. And use a fairly basic injury table for those who hit 0hp. having them deal with broken limbs that give a penalty to stuff. And can be dealt with at the cost of some spell slots or multiple days of rest.
TLDR Add environmental hazards or "legendary" actions to fights in which it would make sense. This alone makes encounters a lot more interesting and diverse. especially in the official modules there is a disturbing lack of lair/legendary actions present in key encounters. Use stuff that challenges Dex, Int, Wis, Cha attributes of the PC's. Don't just go for straight up AC based attacks. Add elements that force PC's to make decisions in regards to a multitude of objectives/situations. That'll put them in harms way naturally Play enemies to the fullest of their capabilities. Don't pull punches and then complain how underwhelming something was. 5e gives tons of healing/reviving/saving options. let the players use them up.
I would suggest that it's not the fear of Death which adds tension so much as fear of failure.
This is a very good point, and it encourages the DM to build more complex situations where you can win a fight and still lose in the overall picture, if you look at movie or books it is very often the case. So good genre references as well.
Don't think complexity is the key. Even in video game design we use complexity in various ways. Rarely adding something new to it. It just makes things more convoluted in my opinion. I use Ye Olde day DND design ideas. As the DM I create a situation. I have one idea how to possibly solve it. The situation is made from the point of view of the bad guy and their available resources. Not even remotely considering any of the PC's abilities or gear. When the PC's stumble upon the situation it is for them to figure out how to deal with it. If they come up with a creative way that sounds plausible then go with it. Let the dice decide the outcome of that idea. If they can't come up with a solution and decide they need other tools. Well tough luck then. You're not getting into the bad guy's lair. Go back to town, or wherever, and the PC's need to grab the things they think are needed. The time spend traveling back and forth. Is time the Bad Guy's can use to further their own plans.
That should give meaning enough. Especially when the DM also makes a clear show of how the bad guys become more of a threat due to the PC's wasting time and not being prepared enough for their adventuring.
Making more "complex" situations isn't going to change that. As for the "failing forward" notion. That is one way of making your players stop caring and preparing for their journey. They know that whatever they do. There will always be a solution to keep them progressing no matter what. It is boring as **** if you ask me :P
I learned D&D from older editions, so me and my players are used to the thrill of character death. One way we've found to make 5e, where either one guy dies or a TPK happens, a bit more lethal is to make death saves blind. Now stabilizing a KOed character is a tactical decision, and you can't intentionally wait until the last minute. It's super intense and a ton of fun!
Ooh I like the blind death save thing. I agree with Giblix, can you expand on how it works? Does the DM roll it or doe the player roll it but only tell the DM the result?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Not to mention the idiocy of "failing forward". Or that death shouldn't be the end. But a new beginning where the PC can be sent back by their god. At some point you just need to let the PC die already instead of giving it life-line after life line. The more recent cultural shift within DnD is not that great in my opinion. Roleplay is lessened and replaced by amateur theater hour.
I've never fallen in the "failing forward" camp - mostly because I'm a big believer in the game world behaving in a logical and plausible manner above all else ( verisimilitude ).
I think I know what you mean by "Roleplay is lessened and replaced by amateur theater hour" - and I think we mostly have Critical Role to thank for that. People mistake talking in character ( acting ) with projecting themselves into the mindset of their Character and making game choices as if they were them ( role playing ). Acting can be an interesting addition to role-playing, but it isn't role-playing by itself. It's what I would class as character development, and it's a valid and sometimes valuable adjunct to role-playing, but it can definitely be taken too far.
As far as lethality is concerned, I don't believe in balancing encounters. I'm content to throw situations into the world which the the Party cannot hope to handle by frontal assault, if it makes sense from the perspective of in-world logic. But with two provisos: a) I make it very clear to Players up front that's something I do ( verisimilitude over game balances ), and b) I'll metagame a bit in that I'll always have an avenue for Characters to find out at least clues of what they're up against. I don't mind the Party being hopelessly outgunned, but I won't have them walk into that situation blindly. If they fail to investigate, or scout, or pull back and gather more resources & allies - then that's on them.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Ooh I like the blind death save thing. I agree with Giblix, can you expand on how it works? Does the DM roll it or doe the player roll it but only tell the DM the result?
I don't know if it's the same technique, but I've heard one blind death saving throw described by the AngryDM ( who I would not classify as being overly soft on Players ) where the Player makes their throws in secret, and only tells everyone the final result: live/die.
It's deliberately set up so that the Player can cheat - either way. It's meant to allow the Player to decide if the Character's death is dramatically satisfying or not. They can save a Character if they feel the death was arbitrary, and then can kill the Character themselves if they feel it's a fitting and satisfying end for that Character.
According to Angry, the results over time are not suspiciously slanted towards Characters always surviving.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
As far as lethality is concerned, I don't believe it balancing encounters. I'm content to throw situations into the world which the the Party cannot hope to handle by frontal assault, if it makes sense from the perspective of in-world logic. But with two provisos: a) I make it very clear to Players up front that's something I do ( verisimilitude over game balances ), and b) I'll metagame a bit in that I'll always have an avenue for Characters to find out at least clues of what they're up against. I don't mind the Party being hopelessly outgunned, but I won't have them walk into that situation blindly. If they fail to investigate, or scout, or pull back and gather more resources & allies - then that's on them.
I'm in a very similar boat. However my approach is more that during game testing. I found that the most fun occurred during the time when the devs hadn't balanced their encounters yet. The encounters were there and still had to be tuned down. I do the same approach in DnD. Make the situations fitting, but tuned more to the upper end of things. Make sure the PC's can gather all the information they require...if they think about doing that. Never be stingy with information. But don't give it to them if they're not doing anything to try and obtain it. Getting information and being transparent about it is the awesome bit. It is key to a lot of strategic and tactical games in general. Can't make meaningful decisions while lacking information. Then it is up to the PC's to deal with the situation as they see fit. Or run away. Although players in general don't contemplate that option. So it takes a bit of effort on the DM's side to train the players into just dying, or really close calls, a few times till they get the point of running away from time to time.
Ooh I like the blind death save thing. I agree with Giblix, can you expand on how it works? Does the DM roll it or doe the player roll it but only tell the DM the result?
I do it as roll to the DM. Means that they can't assume how many rounds they have before they actually have to help the fallen. For all they know they rolled a Nat 1. It is also good if two go down at the same time. You cant base the decision on the number of success, but more what the character "saw".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All posts come with the caveat that I don't know what I'm talking about.
I don't think I would roll Death Saves for a Player - I don't want them to be able to blame the DM for rolling poorly and killing their Character ( isn't Human psychology fun? ). I think I like the Player rolls, but keeps it secret from everyone strategy better; it at least lets the Player feel like it's semi-in-their-control, even though in reality random is random and it really doesn't actually matter who rolls.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
how do you do the blind thing? You as DM roll them behind a screen or something?
I have the player roll it, and since I trust my players (we're friends first, gamers second) I assume they won't fudge it. Even if they stabilize/die, they keep rolling up to five times, and only reveal their status to everyone when another character uses their action to try to heal or stabilize them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While I have DMed a few campaigns over the past 2 years, I am still learning the game mechanics and finding new ways to make my story and combat more interesting. One of the elements that makes combat so exciting is winning against battle against a worthy foe and cheating the ever-looming possibility of perma-death.
However, I found that the game mechanics make it difficult to kill a PC. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to kill off my characters but I do want to understand the game design for more meaningful encounters. The battles my characters say they enjoyed most involved me heavily fudging rolls to hit the PCs (instilling that fear of death) and extend the life of the standard monsters (to get more turns/rounds), which makes me think… do I really understand the mechanics.
Combat mechanics and tactics aside, it seems difficult to bring a PC to Perma-death (unless you hit that one PC with everything you got and hit them while they are down). Below are the factors I am talking about:
Am I missing something on the topic or is that how the rules were intended?
TL;DR: Is perma-death meant to be rare in the game or do I just misunderstand the rules?
That said, I have introduced a homebrew exhaustion rule that basically gives one level of exhaustion per unconscious state which needs a full rest per level to remove. This adds more consequence to going to 0 HP.
One comment I will make - noting that you indicated exciting combat, but required fudging attack rolls of enemies to hit the PCs - try to bring enemies to the encounter that do more than swing a sword, shoot a bow, or smash with a club.
PC's generally have good to excellent AC - or ways of achieving such AC (Shield comes to mind, as does Mage Armor). The enemies need to beat a pretty high DC just to do damage to them. An interesting tactic that can make even the most heavily armored paladin PC feel quite naked is to perform actions that do damage or deal negative effects by targeting the PC's saving throws (typically mediocre) rather than their AC (typically pretty good). Nothing scares a raging barbarian with damage resistance more than psychic damage or Wisdom saving throws to resist debilitating effects.
For other tactics that can surprise even veteran DnD players check out:
The Monsters Know What They're Doing: Combat Tactics for Dungeon Masters - by Keith Ammann
Or just upgrade the opposition. Remember, if you have only one encounter per day, you have to go way over the encounter budget on that one encounter.
I agree with Lyxen here. 5e is set up to be very hard to actually kill a Character.
Relatively easy access to resurrection magic ( assuming the default setting ) makes even the occasional combat death fixable.
Throw in the fact that the current D&D culture encourages that encounters always be combat balanced for the Party ( i.e. it is always possible for the Party to win ), and there's very little reason Players need to fear Character death.
I would suggest that it's not the fear of Death which adds tension so much as fear of failure. There are other forms of failure in Combat other than Death. NPCs they are trying to protect can be killed or captured. Downed comrades ( stabilized or not ), can be captured ( imagine the Party's reaction if the Wizard went down, was then pounced on by a Monster, who then ran off with their unconscious comrade! ). Bad guys can escape, etc. The options for failure depend on the Party's goal in the encounter. If their goals are more varied than "kill the monsters", the forms of possible failure are likewise more varied.
I don't very much like the idea fudging dice and HP totals to prolong Combat - I think there's better ways to design encounters so that possible Combat is more dramatic and interesting.
But if you really wanted to introduce the possibility of combat deaths to the Party, you could always eliminate Death Saves - that would make combat a whole lot more tense.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Not to mention the idiocy of "failing forward". Or that death shouldn't be the end. But a new beginning where the PC can be sent back by their god. At some point you just need to let the PC die already instead of giving it life-line after life line. The more recent cultural shift within DnD is not that great in my opinion. Roleplay is lessened and replaced by amateur theater hour.
However killing PC's can be done.
As example at level 3. Give your encounters environmental hazards. Or special actions that occur at initiative 20. For example an area charm effect from a Gulthias Tree. Players need to figure out where the effect comes from. While also dealing with some hazards. Such as the tree psychically telling the charmed creatures to protect the tree against those causing it harm. Meaning that the Ranger killed the druid. And the barbarian had the cleric at death's door. Leading to some nice pvp. And it also can lead to some really neat roleplaying moments. Such as the ranger, upon arriving in the city of the killed druid, faces her family. Being all honorable and noble he offered his sword to the father. To cut of his head if the father so decided. Which lead to a nice social situation with some real stakes.
Another example would be to have a necromancer lab with some glass cilinders. Necromancer breaks the glass to release undead, but also some poisonous explosive gas. The gas spreads further into the chamber each round. Getting closer and closer to the torches. What to do? if it explodes an entire city block in the city will go up in flames. They also wanted to get the necromancer out for interrogation. Stakes and drama right there. And the tabaxi that ran in with feline speed to grab the necromancer. He had to deal with the zombies that hit hard with their homebrewed attacks in opportunity attacks.
Lure in PC's in a room where they end up kissing a succubus. Especially if its a barbarian or some such with a low save to it. Have a cleric with 20+ AC. Let them use it with darts, arrows and melee attacks bouncing off them. When it makes sense. Just have an Intellect Devourer or Hell Hound corner that PC. See how they handle that kind of a threat. I'm sure they'll be terrified and can die.
Dragons are a great source of killing PC's as well. However a lot of DM's complain that Dragons are underwhelming. That is because those DM's are afraid to play them properly and pull the trigger. Breath attack will cause dex saves which a lot of PC's aren't that great at. You can then grapple the weaker PC's and fly up in the air while attacking them with advantage using the tail. When unconscious drop the PC as a free action and go after another PC with a, hopefully, recharged breath attack. PC falling is 550ft per round and 60ft if feather fall is cast on it. Still substantial damage even when the character is conscious and otherwise an automatic failed death save. Not even mentioning the multi-attack when a PC has already taken a bit of damage. And for gods sake just hit the PC with all those attacks. Don't spread them around to other PC's. Unless you're one of those DM's that complains about how underwhelming the dragon is. At that point you lost all right to your opinion in this case.
As to the homebrew rule the OP uses. I'd rather use Exhaustion upon a character that got revived. And use a fairly basic injury table for those who hit 0hp. having them deal with broken limbs that give a penalty to stuff. And can be dealt with at the cost of some spell slots or multiple days of rest.
TLDR
Add environmental hazards or "legendary" actions to fights in which it would make sense. This alone makes encounters a lot more interesting and diverse. especially in the official modules there is a disturbing lack of lair/legendary actions present in key encounters.
Use stuff that challenges Dex, Int, Wis, Cha attributes of the PC's. Don't just go for straight up AC based attacks.
Add elements that force PC's to make decisions in regards to a multitude of objectives/situations. That'll put them in harms way naturally
Play enemies to the fullest of their capabilities. Don't pull punches and then complain how underwhelming something was. 5e gives tons of healing/reviving/saving options. let the players use them up.
Don't think complexity is the key. Even in video game design we use complexity in various ways. Rarely adding something new to it. It just makes things more convoluted in my opinion. I use Ye Olde day DND design ideas. As the DM I create a situation. I have one idea how to possibly solve it. The situation is made from the point of view of the bad guy and their available resources. Not even remotely considering any of the PC's abilities or gear. When the PC's stumble upon the situation it is for them to figure out how to deal with it. If they come up with a creative way that sounds plausible then go with it. Let the dice decide the outcome of that idea. If they can't come up with a solution and decide they need other tools. Well tough luck then. You're not getting into the bad guy's lair. Go back to town, or wherever, and the PC's need to grab the things they think are needed. The time spend traveling back and forth. Is time the Bad Guy's can use to further their own plans.
That should give meaning enough. Especially when the DM also makes a clear show of how the bad guys become more of a threat due to the PC's wasting time and not being prepared enough for their adventuring.
Making more "complex" situations isn't going to change that. As for the "failing forward" notion. That is one way of making your players stop caring and preparing for their journey. They know that whatever they do. There will always be a solution to keep them progressing no matter what. It is boring as **** if you ask me :P
I learned D&D from older editions, so me and my players are used to the thrill of character death. One way we've found to make 5e, where either one guy dies or a TPK happens, a bit more lethal is to make death saves blind. Now stabilizing a KOed character is a tactical decision, and you can't intentionally wait until the last minute. It's super intense and a ton of fun!
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
how do you do the blind thing? You as DM roll them behind a screen or something?
Ooh I like the blind death save thing. I agree with Giblix, can you expand on how it works? Does the DM roll it or doe the player roll it but only tell the DM the result?
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I've never fallen in the "failing forward" camp - mostly because I'm a big believer in the game world behaving in a logical and plausible manner above all else ( verisimilitude ).
I think I know what you mean by "Roleplay is lessened and replaced by amateur theater hour" - and I think we mostly have Critical Role to thank for that. People mistake talking in character ( acting ) with projecting themselves into the mindset of their Character and making game choices as if they were them ( role playing ). Acting can be an interesting addition to role-playing, but it isn't role-playing by itself. It's what I would class as character development, and it's a valid and sometimes valuable adjunct to role-playing, but it can definitely be taken too far.
As far as lethality is concerned, I don't believe in balancing encounters. I'm content to throw situations into the world which the the Party cannot hope to handle by frontal assault, if it makes sense from the perspective of in-world logic. But with two provisos: a) I make it very clear to Players up front that's something I do ( verisimilitude over game balances ), and b) I'll metagame a bit in that I'll always have an avenue for Characters to find out at least clues of what they're up against. I don't mind the Party being hopelessly outgunned, but I won't have them walk into that situation blindly. If they fail to investigate, or scout, or pull back and gather more resources & allies - then that's on them.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I don't know if it's the same technique, but I've heard one blind death saving throw described by the AngryDM ( who I would not classify as being overly soft on Players ) where the Player makes their throws in secret, and only tells everyone the final result: live/die.
It's deliberately set up so that the Player can cheat - either way. It's meant to allow the Player to decide if the Character's death is dramatically satisfying or not. They can save a Character if they feel the death was arbitrary, and then can kill the Character themselves if they feel it's a fitting and satisfying end for that Character.
According to Angry, the results over time are not suspiciously slanted towards Characters always surviving.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I'm in a very similar boat. However my approach is more that during game testing. I found that the most fun occurred during the time when the devs hadn't balanced their encounters yet. The encounters were there and still had to be tuned down. I do the same approach in DnD. Make the situations fitting, but tuned more to the upper end of things. Make sure the PC's can gather all the information they require...if they think about doing that. Never be stingy with information. But don't give it to them if they're not doing anything to try and obtain it. Getting information and being transparent about it is the awesome bit. It is key to a lot of strategic and tactical games in general. Can't make meaningful decisions while lacking information. Then it is up to the PC's to deal with the situation as they see fit. Or run away. Although players in general don't contemplate that option. So it takes a bit of effort on the DM's side to train the players into just dying, or really close calls, a few times till they get the point of running away from time to time.
I do it as roll to the DM. Means that they can't assume how many rounds they have before they actually have to help the fallen. For all they know they rolled a Nat 1. It is also good if two go down at the same time. You cant base the decision on the number of success, but more what the character "saw".
All posts come with the caveat that I don't know what I'm talking about.
I don't think I would roll Death Saves for a Player - I don't want them to be able to blame the DM for rolling poorly and killing their Character ( isn't Human psychology fun? ). I think I like the Player rolls, but keeps it secret from everyone strategy better; it at least lets the Player feel like it's semi-in-their-control, even though in reality random is random and it really doesn't actually matter who rolls.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I have the player roll it, and since I trust my players (we're friends first, gamers second) I assume they won't fudge it. Even if they stabilize/die, they keep rolling up to five times, and only reveal their status to everyone when another character uses their action to try to heal or stabilize them.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club