I think a more elegant solution is to hide your rolls. That way you can control when you crit - if it's at a really unfortunate point, you can save it for another time when they're better prepared to deal with it.
However, for the "dice will be what the dice will be" DMers, yes, they're a problem. At low levels, the game is very swingy and dependent upon dice rolls. Crits just make it worse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
This is a major factor in my decision to always start parties at 3 or 4 (the other major factor being how uninteresting most classes are until you subclass). Early levels are super swingy to the point where even a set of non-crits can easily tear through a party. That is hardly fun for anyone.
I think the DM critical hit problem is significant, and perhaps an easy solution is just ban it, until the characters reach level 3. ?
Or you can play the game the way it was designed, where sometimes chars die. I make all attack rolls in the open. If the dice gods deem a char dies, so be it.
Personally, I feel the the DM gets the final say, as to whether the dice he/she rolls crits or not. I agree that holding off on DM crits during the early sessions should probably be the way to go, in order to not hurt player feelings.
Perhaps I wasn't doing you a favour by fully loading that gun after all.
Speaking to the thread in general:
The intention of the game is not that L1 characters die. The intention is that you have fun, and DM has broad reaching powders to override the rules and the dice to that end. Character death can help increase the fun, but really, whether that is true varies from one party to the next.
If having the character die wouldn't add to the fun, then it's perfectly fine to intervene, or to introduce new rules like no monster crits, if that makes the game more for you. The only wrong D&D is the D&D that gets between you and fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I think you need to define the "problem." Going to 0 hp does not cause death. The PC has 3-6 rounds of unconsciousness. The team has (should have) spells, a healing kit and potions to use in situations like this. Combat is designed to last only a few rounds and barring the extreme failing 3 death saves in a row (maybe RNG really does want this PC dead) you should have time to finish combat and then go apply some life saving measure. Or use Healing Word during combat
Going to 0HP does not cause death, but at low levels...there's not much difference. Firstly, let's note that their time on the floor, assuming zero intervention (friendly or malevolent) is 2-6. With intervention, it can be 0-6. However, let's look at a low level character
Let's take the Wizard. L1, +1 Con. He'll have health of 7. A Gobbo crits against him, that's 2d6+2 damage, average damage of 8.5, flooring him in a single shot from full health. If our Gobbo manages to max out (a 1 in 36 chance), then that's instant death. Not very likely to be sure, however, that assumes max health. If the Wizard is down to say, 2HP because he's already taken an average hit from our Gobbo, then it only takes an average crit to kill him instantly. That's actually not unlikely, if we're looking at a crit situation. In fact, I daresay that if you're dealing with a crit situation...the likelihood for a L1 Wizard is that he'll probably be insta-gibbed. Other, more robust, classes will probably fare a bit better, but even those aren't guaranteed.
Worse, at low levels, those resources are quite rare or at least are very scarce. They might have a healing potion.. .they might not. They probably have a healing spell...but that's also a massive drain on resources at a time when those resources are most sorely needed for dealing with the enemy.
Let's not pretend that monster crits are some minor threat. They're lethal at the levels that we're talking about.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Would just getting rid of characters being killed outright help. So even if the character had 8 hp at level 1 and a crit did 20 damage they still just drop to zero and have death saves.
Going to 0HP does not cause death, but at low levels...there's not much difference. Firstly, let's note that their time on the floor, assuming zero intervention (friendly or malevolent) is 2-6. With intervention, it can be 0-6. However, let's look at a low level character
Let's take the Wizard. L1, +1 Con. He'll have health of 7. A Gobbo crits against him, that's 2d6+2 damage, average damage of 8.5, flooring him in a single shot from full health. If our Gobbo manages to max out (a 1 in 36 chance), then that's instant death. Not very likely to be sure, however, that assumes max health. If the Wizard is down to say, 2HP because he's already taken an average hit from our Gobbo, then it only takes an average crit to kill him instantly. That's actually not unlikely, if we're looking at a crit situation. In fact, I daresay that if you're dealing with a crit situation...the likelihood for a L1 Wizard is that he'll probably be insta-gibbed. Other, more robust, classes will probably fare a bit better, but even those aren't guaranteed.
Worse, at low levels, those resources are quite rare or at least are very scarce. They might have a healing potion.. .they might not. They probably have a healing spell...but that's also a massive drain on resources at a time when those resources are most sorely needed for dealing with the enemy.
Let's not pretend that monster crits are some minor threat. They're lethal at the levels that we're talking about.
As intended IMO. As you gain power, the dice matter less and less and your strategy matters more. You go from an upstart adventurer who is one bad roll from death, to someone of note that is hard to take down, then to a force rivaling an army, then to one rivaling a god.
Would just getting rid of characters being killed outright help. So even if the character had 8 hp at level 1 and a crit did 20 damage they still just drop to zero and have death saves.
Probably. I think instagibs are the real problem with crits. I think it's an attempt at realism...but personally, I've never enjoyed the prospect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Going to 0HP does not cause death, but at low levels...there's not much difference. Firstly, let's note that their time on the floor, assuming zero intervention (friendly or malevolent) is 2-6. With intervention, it can be 0-6. However, let's look at a low level character
Let's take the Wizard. L1, +1 Con. He'll have health of 7. A Gobbo crits against him, that's 2d6+2 damage, average damage of 8.5, flooring him in a single shot from full health. If our Gobbo manages to max out (a 1 in 36 chance), then that's instant death. Not very likely to be sure, however, that assumes max health. If the Wizard is down to say, 2HP because he's already taken an average hit from our Gobbo, then it only takes an average crit to kill him instantly. That's actually not unlikely, if we're looking at a crit situation. In fact, I daresay that if you're dealing with a crit situation...the likelihood for a L1 Wizard is that he'll probably be insta-gibbed. Other, more robust, classes will probably fare a bit better, but even those aren't guaranteed.
Worse, at low levels, those resources are quite rare or at least are very scarce. They might have a healing potion.. .they might not. They probably have a healing spell...but that's also a massive drain on resources at a time when those resources are most sorely needed for dealing with the enemy.
Let's not pretend that monster crits are some minor threat. They're lethal at the levels that we're talking about.
As intended IMO. As you gain power, the dice matter less and less and your strategy matters more. You go from an upstart adventurer who is one bad roll from death, to someone of note that is hard to take down, then to a force rivaling an army, then to one rivaling a god.
I don't think it is intended, hence why they're considering getting rid of crits for monsters, and probably will. I think they added crits to add to variety and interest, and it happened to have this low level effect. They just never bothered to fix it until now. From what I've seen, they're after the treadmill effect, and crits at low levels give the finger to that concept.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The “death as intended” argument has not been true for decades - not since they Gygax days where the DM-player relationship was more antagonistic. Presently, the intent of the game is very clearly “make things as difficult or as easy as you and your party want to play.”
For some groups, they may very well intend that low level campaigns are lethal due to bad rolls; for other groups they might want to find ways to mitigate the low-level balance problems of monster damage versus player HP. Neither option is wrong, and Wizards is very clear folks should play as they want.
What is wrong? Confusing 5e’s notorious balance issues (present at all levels—it swings from being too lethal to players to being too easy if you just follow CR recommendations depending on what level range the players are) for Wizards’ intent. I am willing to guess the “Wizards intended low levels to be deadly” crowd on this thread conveniently fail to apply that logic and follow Wizards’ “intent” that players use CR, and instead deviate upwards at higher levels to ensure their games stay lethal.
This isn't and shouldn't be true. Monsters have plenty of abilities that PCs can't access, e.g. legendary actions. And PCs have access to some that monsters don't, e.g. class abilities and death saves. There is no sound reason why they should be governed by the same set of mechanics.
And to argue that insta-kills are working as intended is seemingly incorrect, as WotC (who ultimately determine whether rules are RAI) have clearly been mulling over removing monster crits. As noted, it dissuades people from starting play at first level. Who likes to spend the time creating a character and a backstory to only have the PC die in the first encounter due to no strategic error on the player's part? This has clearly been of interest to the devs, as the game has been clearly and intentionally changed to make character death more difficult, and more a consequence of player choices and narrative than swingy rolls.
We had a party that was level 2 I think. We came across a ledge with an abandoned campsite on top of it. The Tabaxi rogue climbed up and snuck into the camp to see what he could find.
That's when a Piercer dropped on him from 40 ft. up and crit. He was 2 damage away from being insta-killed. And all we heard from below was a squelching thud. Fortunately my Cleric was able to get to him after only 2 failed death saves (one from a roll, one from the Piercer starting to munch on his prey). That would have been a pretty disappointing end to his career.
I think this encapsulates the ideals of one of the camps when it comes to player death. There seems to be two positions: player death can happen randomly and that's fine, and player death needs to only happen during narratively meaningful fights with end bosses and the like. I don't know that those two camps will every agree on the benefits of making death easier or harder hah. They play for different reasons.
We had a party that was level 2 I think. We came across a ledge with an abandoned campsite on top of it. The Tabaxi rogue climbed up and snuck into the camp to see what he could find.
That's when a Piercer dropped on him from 40 ft. up and crit. He was 2 damage away from being insta-killed. And all we heard from below was a squelching thud. Fortunately my Cleric was able to get to him after only 2 failed death saves (one from a roll, one from the Piercer starting to munch on his prey). That would have been a pretty disappointing end to his career.
I think this encapsulates the ideals of one of the camps when it comes to player death. There seems to be two positions: player death can happen randomly and that's fine, and player death needs to only happen during narratively meaningful fights with end bosses and the like. I don't know that those two camps will every agree on the benefits of making death easier or harder hah. They play for different reasons.
I'm not sure the camps are quite that...starkly divided. For example, I'm not a fan of meat grinder games - I want to invest in my characters, put a lot of effort into their background. For me, coming up with a full backstory is a lot of effort, and I don't like the feeling when that all goes down the drain because of a single roll of the dice. On the other hand, I'm fine with my characters dying. If they're in a fight and my character happens to get it...fine. I just don't want to have to do that three times before L5 and wasting my good and interesting ideas.
I imagine many people are in that camp.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
We had a party that was level 2 I think. We came across a ledge with an abandoned campsite on top of it. The Tabaxi rogue climbed up and snuck into the camp to see what he could find.
That's when a Piercer dropped on him from 40 ft. up and crit. He was 2 damage away from being insta-killed. And all we heard from below was a squelching thud. Fortunately my Cleric was able to get to him after only 2 failed death saves (one from a roll, one from the Piercer starting to munch on his prey). That would have been a pretty disappointing end to his career.
I think this encapsulates the ideals of one of the camps when it comes to player death. There seems to be two positions: player death can happen randomly and that's fine, and player death needs to only happen during narratively meaningful fights with end bosses and the like. I don't know that those two camps will every agree on the benefits of making death easier or harder hah. They play for different reasons.
I'm not sure the camps are quite that...starkly divided. For example, I'm not a fan of meat grinder games - I want to invest in my characters, put a lot of effort into their background. For me, coming up with a full backstory is a lot of effort, and I don't like the feeling when that all goes down the drain because of a single roll of the dice. On the other hand, I'm fine with my characters dying. If they're in a fight and my character happens to get it...fine. I just don't want to have to do that three times before L5 and wasting my good and interesting ideas.
I imagine many people are in that camp.
Maybe that is camp 3. A cost/benefit focused camp that wants a minimum number of hours of play per hour spent making characters. Now we need a venn diagram and some labels...
We had a party that was level 2 I think. We came across a ledge with an abandoned campsite on top of it. The Tabaxi rogue climbed up and snuck into the camp to see what he could find.
That's when a Piercer dropped on him from 40 ft. up and crit. He was 2 damage away from being insta-killed. And all we heard from below was a squelching thud. Fortunately my Cleric was able to get to him after only 2 failed death saves (one from a roll, one from the Piercer starting to munch on his prey). That would have been a pretty disappointing end to his career.
If you take damage while at 0 health you take 2 failed death save’s instead. With the addition of the actual failed rogue that guy should have been killed. That’s one of the major reasons for the very well known ‘don’t split the party’ cliche.
Just saw a poll on Reddit that is somewhat relevant to this thread. Thought is was really interesting to see that very few people wanted the game to be LESS lethal.
Just saw a poll on Reddit that is somewhat relevant to this thread. Thought is was really interesting to see that very few people wanted the game to be LESS lethal.
I would be curious to see a poll broken down by level range. I think it is fair to say that, overall, the CR system vastly underestimates party power at higher levels--even a modestly challenging fight would be considered "deadly" by CR recommendations. Since the higher level ranges are where players are most likely to spend their time, I expect that is the largest part of the level range forming the opinion of how deadly the game should be. I would probably vote "more lethal" as well, though what I actually would want to vote is "better balanced", since that would imply making levels 1-3 a bit less lethal and higher levels more lethal.
I think the DM critical hit problem is significant, and perhaps an easy solution is just ban it, until the characters reach level 3. ?
I think a more elegant solution is to hide your rolls. That way you can control when you crit - if it's at a really unfortunate point, you can save it for another time when they're better prepared to deal with it.
However, for the "dice will be what the dice will be" DMers, yes, they're a problem. At low levels, the game is very swingy and dependent upon dice rolls. Crits just make it worse.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
This is a major factor in my decision to always start parties at 3 or 4 (the other major factor being how uninteresting most classes are until you subclass). Early levels are super swingy to the point where even a set of non-crits can easily tear through a party. That is hardly fun for anyone.
Personally, I feel the the DM gets the final say, as to whether the dice he/she rolls crits or not. I agree that holding off on DM crits during the early sessions should probably be the way to go, in order to not hurt player feelings.
Perhaps I wasn't doing you a favour by fully loading that gun after all.
Speaking to the thread in general:
The intention of the game is not that L1 characters die. The intention is that you have fun, and DM has broad reaching powders to override the rules and the dice to that end. Character death can help increase the fun, but really, whether that is true varies from one party to the next.
If having the character die wouldn't add to the fun, then it's perfectly fine to intervene, or to introduce new rules like no monster crits, if that makes the game more for you. The only wrong D&D is the D&D that gets between you and fun.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I think you need to define the "problem." Going to 0 hp does not cause death. The PC has 3-6 rounds of unconsciousness. The team has (should have) spells, a healing kit and potions to use in situations like this. Combat is designed to last only a few rounds and barring the extreme failing 3 death saves in a row (maybe RNG really does want this PC dead) you should have time to finish combat and then go apply some life saving measure. Or use Healing Word during combat
Going to 0HP does not cause death, but at low levels...there's not much difference. Firstly, let's note that their time on the floor, assuming zero intervention (friendly or malevolent) is 2-6. With intervention, it can be 0-6. However, let's look at a low level character
Let's take the Wizard. L1, +1 Con. He'll have health of 7. A Gobbo crits against him, that's 2d6+2 damage, average damage of 8.5, flooring him in a single shot from full health. If our Gobbo manages to max out (a 1 in 36 chance), then that's instant death. Not very likely to be sure, however, that assumes max health. If the Wizard is down to say, 2HP because he's already taken an average hit from our Gobbo, then it only takes an average crit to kill him instantly. That's actually not unlikely, if we're looking at a crit situation. In fact, I daresay that if you're dealing with a crit situation...the likelihood for a L1 Wizard is that he'll probably be insta-gibbed. Other, more robust, classes will probably fare a bit better, but even those aren't guaranteed.
Worse, at low levels, those resources are quite rare or at least are very scarce. They might have a healing potion.. .they might not. They probably have a healing spell...but that's also a massive drain on resources at a time when those resources are most sorely needed for dealing with the enemy.
Let's not pretend that monster crits are some minor threat. They're lethal at the levels that we're talking about.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Would just getting rid of characters being killed outright help. So even if the character had 8 hp at level 1 and a crit did 20 damage they still just drop to zero and have death saves.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
As intended IMO. As you gain power, the dice matter less and less and your strategy matters more. You go from an upstart adventurer who is one bad roll from death, to someone of note that is hard to take down, then to a force rivaling an army, then to one rivaling a god.
Probably. I think instagibs are the real problem with crits. I think it's an attempt at realism...but personally, I've never enjoyed the prospect.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I don't think it is intended, hence why they're considering getting rid of crits for monsters, and probably will. I think they added crits to add to variety and interest, and it happened to have this low level effect. They just never bothered to fix it until now. From what I've seen, they're after the treadmill effect, and crits at low levels give the finger to that concept.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The “death as intended” argument has not been true for decades - not since they Gygax days where the DM-player relationship was more antagonistic. Presently, the intent of the game is very clearly “make things as difficult or as easy as you and your party want to play.”
For some groups, they may very well intend that low level campaigns are lethal due to bad rolls; for other groups they might want to find ways to mitigate the low-level balance problems of monster damage versus player HP. Neither option is wrong, and Wizards is very clear folks should play as they want.
What is wrong? Confusing 5e’s notorious balance issues (present at all levels—it swings from being too lethal to players to being too easy if you just follow CR recommendations depending on what level range the players are) for Wizards’ intent. I am willing to guess the “Wizards intended low levels to be deadly” crowd on this thread conveniently fail to apply that logic and follow Wizards’ “intent” that players use CR, and instead deviate upwards at higher levels to ensure their games stay lethal.
This isn't and shouldn't be true. Monsters have plenty of abilities that PCs can't access, e.g. legendary actions. And PCs have access to some that monsters don't, e.g. class abilities and death saves. There is no sound reason why they should be governed by the same set of mechanics.
And to argue that insta-kills are working as intended is seemingly incorrect, as WotC (who ultimately determine whether rules are RAI) have clearly been mulling over removing monster crits. As noted, it dissuades people from starting play at first level. Who likes to spend the time creating a character and a backstory to only have the PC die in the first encounter due to no strategic error on the player's part? This has clearly been of interest to the devs, as the game has been clearly and intentionally changed to make character death more difficult, and more a consequence of player choices and narrative than swingy rolls.
I think this encapsulates the ideals of one of the camps when it comes to player death. There seems to be two positions: player death can happen randomly and that's fine, and player death needs to only happen during narratively meaningful fights with end bosses and the like. I don't know that those two camps will every agree on the benefits of making death easier or harder hah. They play for different reasons.
I'm not sure the camps are quite that...starkly divided. For example, I'm not a fan of meat grinder games - I want to invest in my characters, put a lot of effort into their background. For me, coming up with a full backstory is a lot of effort, and I don't like the feeling when that all goes down the drain because of a single roll of the dice. On the other hand, I'm fine with my characters dying. If they're in a fight and my character happens to get it...fine. I just don't want to have to do that three times before L5 and wasting my good and interesting ideas.
I imagine many people are in that camp.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Maybe that is camp 3. A cost/benefit focused camp that wants a minimum number of hours of play per hour spent making characters. Now we need a venn diagram and some labels...
If you take damage while at 0 health you take 2 failed death save’s instead. With the addition of the actual failed rogue that guy should have been killed. That’s one of the major reasons for the very well known ‘don’t split the party’ cliche.
Just saw a poll on Reddit that is somewhat relevant to this thread. Thought is was really interesting to see that very few people wanted the game to be LESS lethal.
Should OneDnD be more lethal, less lethal or about the same
Should onednd be more lethal, less lethal, or about the same?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I would be curious to see a poll broken down by level range. I think it is fair to say that, overall, the CR system vastly underestimates party power at higher levels--even a modestly challenging fight would be considered "deadly" by CR recommendations. Since the higher level ranges are where players are most likely to spend their time, I expect that is the largest part of the level range forming the opinion of how deadly the game should be. I would probably vote "more lethal" as well, though what I actually would want to vote is "better balanced", since that would imply making levels 1-3 a bit less lethal and higher levels more lethal.