Why must 5e and OneDnd both have auto-crit (when downed) and any crit = two failed death saves.

Quote from Menwy >>

I wonder if the team monitors these threads or reddit feedback.

 

 

I have no proof, but no doubt either.

That is not to say that all threads are read, not even entire threads. But that they take a look at the forums to see the general opinion of the fan, I have no doubt. It would be stupid not to. Then what they do with that information is up to them.

A few days ago, I saw this ScreenRant article about alternatives to Death Saving Throws in D&D:

Top 5 Most Interesting D&D Death Save Alternatives

I was particularly impressed with a suggestion from the YouTube channel XP to Level 3. This rule would allow characters at 0 HP to remain conscious, but their actions would be limited. Dying characters would essentially be Prone and have the Dazed condition (they could move or take an action, but not both). And taking an action would result in one or more levels of exhaustion.

I like that

now we have to look at 3 conditions, would be nice if it was a single condition not prone, dying , unconscious etc

Personally I think it works fine as-is. As has been noted, making 0 HP too punishing can easily drive players away, particularly new players. And D&D combat and realism have always had an off-and-on relationship at best. Really, the cool thing about the current setup is that it lets an enemy twist the knife on a downed PC without immediately killing the character off. If you're running an early encounter against a BBEG where they're tossing around the party for a few rounds before exiting the scene, having them hit a downed PC is a good way to insert some extra drama, tension, and reason for the PC's to be after them without actually taking anything off the board, so long as someone can reach the downed character with a spell/potion/etc. before their next turn.

Two years later, this still irks me as anti-spirit of dnd. Auto failures should be death saves, or just simplify it to three saves (or death by exceeding max negative hp)

“

Damage at 0 Hit Points. If you take any damage while you have 0 Hit Points, you suffer a Death Saving Throw failure. If the damage is from a Critical Hit, you suffer two failures instead. If the damage equals or exceeds your Hit Point maximum, you die.”

Suggestion: each unique instance of damage is a dice role. Keep the “exceeds your hp maximum” rule.

Make them roll two dice on crits.

create a new dm optional rule

i like this suggestion “I play it that if you take damage you roll a death saving throw but can't gain a success, only a neutral or negative result. On crit you roll with disadvantage”

sounds like you should house rule it.

Not to be beating a dead horse, but in context of the 2024-rules and as a POV on how you might approach the risk of death in 5.5e:

Between the relatively easy access to Healing Potions, access to healing spells, Healer's Kit, and the high priority of taking Revivify on eligible classes (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Divine Soul Sorcerer, or Celestial Warlock), the chance of a permadeath is relatively low - at a certain point. If your party don't have access to resurrection magics, I would think some might have access to Gentle Repose (Cleric, Paladin, Wizard - strangely enough not Sorc/Warlock) - to postpone decay and allow transport to a city of reasonable size, where you can purchase access to resurrection magics (at which point it is your DM who decides how costly and accessible that is - very good session zero point to get around to). If not, then your party simply must account for that, and prioritize getting downed allies out of danger.

The only places where I find permadeath a bit annoying in 5.5e is low levels, where the risk of instant kill is present, especially for caster classes. The access to healing potions and magics is limited, and no way to access resurrection magics - even through purchase.
Then there's the spells or abilities that just insta-kill on 0 HP with no easy access to resurrections - like Disintegrate or Finger of Death (becoming a Zombie technically still means you have a body but its up to the DM to rule how that affects your return). Luckily most monsters are not spell casters of that caliber, but there definitely are monster abilities that operate similarly, and they feel a bit cheap.

In a game where you might spend a decent amount of time on a character backstory, intermingle it with the other PCs, and the DM might have plotlines down the road for that character, a permadeath is... a bit of a mood killer. However it clearly needs to be there to make people fear making bad decisions (including when a tactical retreat might be called for), value rescuing their teammates, and it has a purpose to make PCs withhold resources to deal with death (either spell slots for healing/resurrections, Healer's Kit, Healing Potions, or money for resurrections).

If your DM specifically runs a "double-tap" type campaign, it would be expected to have that discussion at a session zero, so the PCs know they enter a setting with a high mortality risk. Plan and act accordingly.

To counter the previously mentioned whack-a-mole healing; if the enemy downs a PC and they shift their focus to another PC that is still a threat, and then the first PC gets healed and stands up - then the enemy is well within their rights to make sure you stay down. Again this is a good point to discuss in a session zero with reminders to the PCs throughout the campaign so they are aware of how NPCs would operate in the setting.

As a side-note: I actually don't mind when mechanics or conditions are "build-a-bear" of other conditions. While it is annoying in the heat of the moment to have to look up several conditions, it forces you to get acquainted with several of the more common conditions like Prone, Unconscious, Incapacitated, Restrained, Poisoned, Charmed, Frightened.

It also makes it a lot easier when using buzz-words like that to know if you have some kind of benefit against something - like the Elves Fey Ancestry with ADV against Charm effects. No need to interpret effects (at least from the same ruleset). If the effect says it Charms the target, then you have ADV on saves against it.