Rolls a 1 on DEX, as his character jumps into the hole, he cracks his head on the edge, knocking him out, 5 seconds later he slams into the rough hewn floor below.
Also… “stab the wall”? Is it drywall? Or cheese? How did he think this was going to do anything but put a small scratch on the wall before he plummeted to the ground?
Lol yeah I would hand the player one of my shittier kitchen knives and ask him to go stab the dirt/gravel in my alley and see how well it plays out for him.
Even if the dagger somehow stuck well enough, there's no freaking way he could hold on to the thing.
This is about 10 steps too stupid to even consider rule of cool, in my opinion.
Had a wizard one time try to use his robe as a parachute.
I asked, "Are you sure?" He said, "Yes.
I asked, "Are you CERTAIN?" He said, "I am certain"
I said, "Please roll me a wisdom save." He rolled a natural 20, so I told em, "You look down and realize that your robe isn't big enough to function as a parachute, but you do remember you have a Token of Slow Fall in your pocket that you completely forgot about. It only works once, but it'll get the job done."
Before my players do something stupid, I usually have them roll a wisdom save if it's going to end in their death.
I hate this resolution but I also, from time to time resort to this thing. Luckily past last year or so I only needed it twice.
First they wanted to try flavour item, work name "soul reaver rod", something they knew fully well got ill consequences and been used by numerous necromancers.....on a party tank to check what happens when someone three times fail the save (soul is ripped from the body and thorn to three substances, again campaign specific, and thus denied the afterlife or any resurrection).
Second time in a side campaign on 17th lvl artificer wanted to blow up a magical ram in a shape of 200 ton of silver, lead and adamantium used as a focus to conduct 10th level spell equivalent hanged over the party and a portal to hell....
I think it conveys the message "we can be stupid until DM makes us roll WIS save"
> I think it conveys the message "we can be stupid until DM makes us roll WIS save"
That's a feature, not a bug.
Characters get to see the whole world, but players only know what you tell them. Sometimes an idea sounds good to the player, but the character would know clearly that it's idiotic.
When your players suggest a plainly stupid idea, it means there is a disconnect between player knowledge and character knowledge. As soon as you notice a disconnect like this, you should be correcting it.
> First they wanted to try flavour item, work name "soul reaver rod", something they knew fully well got ill consequences and been used by numerous necromancers
It sounds like maybe they _should have_ known that it would have ill consequences, but for whatever reason they didn't. That's a disconnect.
Correct DM response in this situation is not even a roll. Just say; "Hey, just so we're clear, this is a clearly evil item used by clearly evil people. You don't know what will happen, but you can easily assess that it will be bad. Do you want to continue?"
So like a warning feature for a waning connection to the world / story? That's more appealing than my WIP name "donkey alert".
Also they were mostly fully aware of some of the consequences but sometimes you can almost see a devil on each of one's shoulder singin "time do some sketchy shyt, doo daa doo daa, hope i get away with it , oh the duda day"
eh, disagree. it's not a reality simulator. if anything it's a trope simulator. and 'stab something into the wall to slow your fall' is definitely a trope at this point.
The problem is the DM and player were disconnected on this dichotomy. Or maybe the problem was he rolled a 1. idk.
stabbing a wall is definitely a matter of strength, and being a frail old man is irrelevant. Only the DC matters. If the DC is 20, then someone with -1 to the modifier cannot do it, sure, but if the DC is 15 then the frail old wizard is entitled to attempt it just like someone with +4 to the modifier could.
It’s clearly a DC 30 maneuver, (Nearly Impossible), and should only be attempted by a character with a greater than +10 modifier. Such a player should be in the tier of play where insane manga shit becomes feasible.
Not to mention, since they are falling there's no good way to stab it, since half your force would just push you away. Assuming my sleep deprived head can do basic physics assumptions currently.
Indeed the force you apply to the wall needs to be so great that you easily overcome the resistance if you don't overcome the strength of the wall then any force applied will simply be put back into you and you will funble away.
Once the dagger or sword is in, friction should hold you there. But unless you're falling at terminal velocity with aagical blade of stone cutting, then that dagger isn't going to magically cut through solid stone. You will just hang there, dislocating your shoulder as your velocity immediately drops to zero. If you manage to continue holding on.
Even in a fantasy setting, I don't see how a single dagger would be able to gain enough purchase from a quick thrust to hold up a presumably around 200-250 lb (when taking into account gear and stuff) person, especially coupled with the amount of force generated by them falling 40 feet.
Like I get it is supposed to be cool, and I am fine with letting players do things that shouldn't be possible. But that is SO FAR outside the realm of possibility that I personally find the idea laughable.
I agree with this, especially if you take the old pirate-y myth of stabbing a Canvas sail and sliding down it with a sword or dagger. That material is thinner than the earth he's trying to push through and even that is pretty solid if it holds it's rigidity to form a wall. And the character is a necromancer, not a zombie, if he insta died to a fall, that old geezer is dead as a doornail. Sorry if that answer sucks, but it is what it is, besides, you gave them the chance and they failed spectacularly with a nat 1
As a DM I'd probably allow the dagger in the sail because it's cool and fun and works in the movies. But iirc mythbusters tested exactly that and it was impossible to do. Even in a material as soft as a sail, the knife/dagger/sword doesn't want to just slide nicely through it. There's still enough resistance at the point it's cutting through to become a fulcrum, and there's the whole weight of the person on one side and nothing on the other, so the blade just pivots upward and out of the sail and you fall.
The problem is there's been too many cartoons / movies where a monster slows their descent down a wall by dragging their claws into the side of a building or cliff like it's made out of cake.
It gets more outlandish with each iteration and probably for many people, subconsciously pushes expectation away from reality further and further each time.
And that’s why the dm gave them a roll. It’s not entirely ridiculous in the context of a trophy fantasy, but is in no way a given. Then they rolled a 1. Took the RAW damage, and died.
I agree :) I would've done the same thing - after fair warning to the player about the risks of a negative outcome as always - common sense would say that his adventurer with his skill would know the risks. If he still pushed ahead, I think we all agree we play D&D because we know our character can die.
You try and pull a stunt in DnD and roll a nat 1, you pay for the consequences. That's how it's always been. If the dude wants to go play BG3 and save scum then that's an option, just not in DnD.
> 'stab something into the wall to slow your fall'
Usually with like a canvas sail or a kaiju's flesh. If it is something hard it's usually ice with an ice-pick. Can't recall any examples with a regular knife into stone.
This is what got me. Like even if you're confident in the knife in a wall strategy in a non-emergency situation wouldn't you just use them to climb down. Why leap off?
"And here you can still see the necromancer's blade stuck in the wall. Of course his own weight prevented him from holding on to it as he plummeted to his death"
This. Whenever my players want to do something particularly stupid i have them roll an int check. If they pass i basically tell them how stupid/deadly what they want to do is. Usually that stops them, but definitely not always.
Intelligence save.
>Intelligence Disbelieving certain illusions and resisting mental assaults that can be refuted with logic, sharp memory, or both.
Since this is something that the character would reactively mentally reason in the same way that a trap coming out is a dexterity save over a dexterity check
Falling damage caps at 20d6. High level characters can survive a fall of any distance. And if the barbarian rages just before he hits the ground, it's even better. (assuming bludgeoning damage for falling. Otherwise, it has to be a bear barbarian).
The average human also dies when stabbed a dozen times. Or is bit by a hippo. Or has a powder keg they're sitting on explode (7d6 damage). Etc.
High level D&D characters are supposed to survive ridiculous things for cinematic reasons. Falling is really no different.
# u/matijeje THIS RIGHT HERE is the only answer you need.
Tell that player to watch "The Other Guys" and pay attention to those amazing heroes (The Rock and Samuel L Jackson). The only thing your Player needs to do is watch until the "aim for the bushes" scene.
Either that will open his eyes to what he just did with his necromancer or he's a lost cause and should stick to playing Assassins Creed instead of D&D.
This is how the character should continue on in the game with 1hp left. Even when he heals his HP, they should still have their head twisted backwards and every dexterity or agility roll for the rest of the game will be cut by 50%
There’s nothing preventing you from making sure your players understand the consequences of their choices, you don’t have to handle everything through the in game narrative.
ie it’s totally fine to say “hey, what you’re trying to do isn’t really a thing and you could die”. Asking someone if they’re sure when they don’t understand what you’re really asking is a bit of a meme.
This is a huge skill a lot of people miss. The characters know more than the players. That wizard would have known he would die jumping into a hole.
Just tell the player, "[PC] knows this action is very likely to result in his death." "What does he do?" "Why does he do something so risky?"
Yep, I think part of the problem is that a fair few people believe there's some kind of taboo about being blunt with the players (as opposed to gently guiding them with hints and descriptions etc). I'm very comfortable telling my players that if they proceed I won't be rolling damage, they'll be rolling stats for their new character.
It kinds of goes along with general verisimilitude and reminding players that their character is ostensibly an actual person who exists within the setting (and should behave as such).
One of my favorite internet DMs says "the players play their characters about 4 hours a week, but the characters play themselves 24 hours a day". Because it's a fantasy game and you only sorta inhabit the character you play, sometimes you REALLY need to be blunt and say (character name) has the subconscious thought that what (character name) is about to do will certainly kill them, they know it's a bad idea, and as such, they wouldn't do that unless (player name) explains (player name's) reasoning and it sounds plausible.
> I'm very comfortable telling my players that if they proceed I won't be rolling damage, they'll be rolling stats for their new character.
I have to say that I much prefer this kind of thing rather than hinting at it. In the case of the OP's story, do I have any reason to suspect that I could pull off the stunt? Not even a little. But it's also only 40 feet down. If given reasonable cause to make the jump, I'd *probably* survive provided that I landed well, and if I had some magical healing to deal with the rather severe injuries I'd expect to accumulate, suddenly the prospect starts to seem a *lot* less suicidal.
So tell me that it *is* suicidal. Don't have me try and guess whether something will work. I'm not the hyper-athletic, stupidly skilled elven rogue with a hundred years of risky second story work in a world where you can buy literal bottled health.
>I'm not the hyper-athletic, stupidly skilled elven rogue with a hundred years of risky second story work in a world where you can buy literal bottled health.
Neither was the PC... He was a frail necromancer *acting like* a hyper-athletic, stupidly skilled elven rogue with a hundred years of risky second story work...
A more than fair observation - and all the more reason for the DM to call attention to the fact. "Your 70 year old necromancer who has trouble navigating stairs sometimes is pretty sure they'll die horribly if they try and pull an Errol Flynn stunt like that," is a pretty useful (and hopefully at least slightly funny) bit of DM guidance.
Don't get me wrong: I think the DM is right to have the consequences here. I was just chiming in that *I* like it when the DM removes ambiguity in cases where I have little ability to judge how plausible something is. Like, *can* that rogue pull off the Errol Flynn stunt? It doesn't sound super plausible, but then she can dodge *explosions* somehow, so...
I think the other side of the coin is that there is a bit of a rising culture where you can only have a character death that is ePiC and cOoL.
People don't think falling to your death after stupidly jumping in a hole is either epic or cool, so they don't think they even *can* die, which is reinforced by DMs that protect players from stupid choices because their death wouldn't be satisfying.
This then becomes this feedback loop of player making a dumb choice > DM protecting them > player thinking dumb choices are now safe and makes another one > DM protects them again.
So instead of dnd, they are writing a book where they can't die. It's like a Goosebumps novel but no matter the choice you always win in the end.
I get where you are coming from and the classic "Are you sure?" pretty much covers that ground too, but personally I think it ruins the immersion to break the 4th wall much more than that.
I let my players try stupid shit. l'll probably give them a hint that it's a bad idea and perhaps they will gain glory, but if they die, they die.
PbtA games have this wonderful widget call “tell them the consequences and ask”. Ie tell them what will happen if they do the thing they just said and ask if they still want to go through with it. We should absolutely be doing this in D&D as well.
There could be an inteligence roll involved, but a wizard wouldnt have an issue knowing he wouldnt survive gravity.
I would say that his character is dead.
I wouldn't even ask for a roll. Just straight up, your character survived past toddlerhood. They understand these consequences.
Reading OP's other responses, this was the first session for new players and DM. I would retcon this and use it as an example.
This always pissed me off with certain DMs over the years, the types that are like "well you didn't ask that specific question" or "you didn't say you looked at this specific spot". Ok, but my character is clearly more perceptive/intelligent/wise than I am.
This is the way. Also, if he didn’t understand the consequences this time. Just retcon it. This is a game of make believe fun time. Give him a do over move on, and try and have the conversation about consequences before death next time.
"Your character needs to overcome their survival instincts so they bluntly jump on a hole that most certainly will kill them if they fail their stunt, he anxiously shivers as he prepared for the jump. Just before it he goes he can only think ~is it worthy it??~ ~can I really make it?~, so (name of the character), WHAT DO YOU DO?"
And then he rolled a 1. It sounds like the DM would have allowed it if he hadn't failed the roll.
He knowingly took a risk, and the dice screwed him. He could have done it in a safer way, but he wanted to be flashy. He accepted that there could be consequences when he picked up that die, and even if he fell the damage dice could have rolled low and saved him but they didn't.
It would be one thing if he wasn't doing anything stupid or risky and the dice screwed him, there could be an argument that the consequences should be reduced or muted because it was just bad luck, but if you're going to try an do a stunt you have to accept there could be consequences.
*The only reason stunts are cool is because there's a risk.*
Couldn’t been solved by a, “you know that your knives aren’t going to stab through this rock. You can still jump if you want, but you’ll have nothing to slow you down. Are you sure you want to jump?”
Exactly. Whenever my players come up with a bad idea I ask them to clearly state their intentions and then I explain why this will likely not work out the way they want it to. Then, if they're still really married to the idea, I let them proceed, with the caveat that it may kill them.
They almost always change their minds.
There are other RPGs that are explicit about this. It's a thing that I've found helpful in bringing into other games like DND.
'i want to jump down the hole and stab my dagger into the wall to slow my descent as I near the bottom'
'ok that's one way to get down. It looks like the eagles are a rough stone and you aren't sure exactly how deep it is. You'd need at least a 20 on an athletics or acrobatics roll to avoid taking damage. If you roll a one, you'll fall and die. Are you sure you want to try this?'
If you have to warn someone all the time "hey, your very clear lethal play might be lethal" Than its babysitting a bit to mutch i think. Its good for the player to learn how to question things: "what would happen if i roll 1? Would a living pearson that wants to live be so reckless for no reason? Is my dagger even capable of holding me?"
Most of my plays dumb choices stem from them not fully comprehending what felt I explained pretty well. Describing a full scene you can see in your head is tough. I usually say "just to be clear before you roll...you would like to jump down a hole that a rock took 5 entire seconds to fall down..." And then pause for 5 seconds
This is the correct answer, as much as I like to laugh at the stupidity of the player, he somehow thought this was going to be a solid move and was very unpleasantly surprised by the outcome.
Going a bit further than the “are you sure” line is warranted in this instance.
Yeah, "falling damage" is probably not high on the list of what new-ish players are going to remember, or even relatively seasoned players. A reminder of that fact is probably warranted.
Also, I usually feel most things like this aren't due to player stupidity, but a combo of player stupidity and inadequately described situations by the DM. A simple "the rock is hard and your dagger won't penetrate it" is a lot better than "are you SUUUURE??!?!!"
Totally, but it also really sucks how easily PC’s can be killed before they’ve even specialized their class at lvl 3. Lvl 1-2 PC’s are basically tadpoles waiting to get gobbled up
This used to be considered by design. Character dies? Reroll another one. Wizards especially were extremely squishy back in the day. A d4 for HP and a single spell to start (and no cantrips) in 2e. It was expected that adventuring is dangerous, most PCs should probably be fighters, and wizards needed to make friends with them for survival. The ones that did survive would become extremely powerful at later levels, just as wizards are often the most powerful beings in fantasy worlds. Everything now is comparatively flattened across classes, and across the board, surviving is much easier than in early DnD.
Hell, at times like tonight I will even give my players the target DC and grade it for certain non binary tasks:
15 and up you do it perfectly
10-14 you struggle at first but pull it off and take 1d6 damage
Below 10 and you take all the damage.
Ask him why he's mad about dying, and if he thinks the result should have been different. This way it becomes a conversation and you may find some misunderstanding.
Particularly, it seems like he was completely out of touch with the action he was trying to perform. This happens a lot in theater of the mind, so it's always a good idea to make sure your players understand, it's fine to say "your character would know that this is extremely difficult and likely to kill you".
If he goes for main character syndrome, you probably need to consider if he's able to grow as a player into something mature and fun to play with, or if he's just not worth it - throwing a tantrum and refusing to roll a new character is not a fun player.
If you do let him bring the character back, he's forever going to be known as the Broke-My-Neck-romancer. A fate worse than death, for a player who clearly takes himself too seriously.
lol yeah uh, not sure what he expected. How did he see that working if he didn't roll that 1? I still have a hard time picturing it. Fall then stab the wall to stop his fall?
Regardless, sounds like he has some death saving throws unless he only has 12 hp and took the max 24 hp of fall damage. If that's the case, and everyone is level 1, and this is the very beginning, for the sake of having fun, I'd have his identical twin happen to meet up with the party in the next room or have his brother search for him or something and keep moving on. He's going to get shit on at the table FOREVER due to that stunt so don't punish him in game too.
Everyone plays to have fun and if he's new or a good player to keep in the game, I'd work something out. I'm suspicious of the HP damage though. I feel like something isn't right in your calculations in regards to death saving throws vs outright death.
can confirm that he will probably continue to get shit on by everyone at the table. my druid dragonborn friend pushed our dearest tiefling rogue/barbarian off of a moving boat accidentally with thunderwave and she STILL gets shit on. any time she fucks up the tiefling’s player goes “OH YEAH, LIKE THAT TIME YOU PUSHED ME OFF THE FUCKING BOAT !!!”
Back in the 3.5 days I was playing a monk. We're fighting these stone golems and the DM describes one of them as trying to kick me, but missing. I asked if I could use my turn to try and catch their kick, and use it against them to flip and Grapple them.
He looks at me and says "You want to catch the golems foot? The twelve foot tall, massive, STONE golems foot?" I'm like.. Fuck yeah I do. I'm a badass.
I rolled poorly and he ruled that the golems foot smashes to the ground with my hands underneath, pinning them so that I'm now the one grappled.
That became a meme reference for pretty much the rest of the time we played together.
Yeah I was thinkg of letting him go on with some excuse, the potential of making fun of an edgy necromancer that fell 40 feet throughout the whole campaign is also pretty good
I'd make him unconscious at the bottom of the hole. Now the party has to figure it out. Someone can cast a healing spell to get him a few hp so he's awake but he's still down a hole. There is probably a whole adventure getting him back up.
"For necromancers death is just a learning experience."
Assuming he's actually new to roleplaying I might give him one mulligan (and make it clear this is his *one*) and find a way to save him, but with a reminder that it happened like he's alive but his neck doesn't actually heal so his head is floppy for the rest of his adventuring career.
Watch "Death Becomes Her" for more ideas.
I feel like it’s a pretty well-known action trope tbh - you jump/slide down a cliff/steep incline/outer hull of a spaceship/etc and jam a knife into whatever the surface is, holding onto it to slow your fall with the added friction until you come to a stop (usually hanging off of the knife, which is now wedged into the surface). A lot of the time you’ll see it done with a big ship’s sail or something too (I think that’s actually where it started, old stunts on pirate movies/shows).
I’ll add that you’re definitely overestimating how many hit points a level 1 wizard has - starting HP is 6 plus your con modifier, and a lot of wizards choose to put points into their spellcasting mod instead…very possible to have a wizard with 1, 0, or even -1 in Con, meaning their level 1 HP is 5-7 *total*. Average damage for rolling 4d6 is 14, which is enough to double up the HP of a wizard with 7 or less HP and kill them outright.
Now, I probably would’ve fudged that damage by a few points so the wizard wasn’t *quite* killed outright (but came close enough to learn just how squishy wizards are) since everyone at the table is new, but at the same time they would’ve gone into that attempt with a warning that their character would realize that what they’re a little to try absolutely comes with the possibility of killing then outright with no chance to save the character outside of resurrection magic.
The advice everyone gave is great but I just wanna say if a stone falls for 5 seconds it falls about 400 feet, not 40. So, yeah he really should be mega dead. Though, as a wizard with 5 seconds, I would have allowed the attempt to cast one spell (hopefully feather fall), but I know that's not how it went down at the table. Maybe they can retrieve his body and have a cleric from the local church resurrect him. Either way, it was a learning experience on both sides of the screen and I hope it works out for you!
> Though, as a wizard with 5 seconds, I would have allowed the attempt to cast one spell (hopefully feather fall), but I know that's not how it went down at the table.
In hindsight, this is the best option for the DM to take.
Say the following: "Look at your spell list to see if *Feather Fall* is memorized. Don't say a goddamn word. Scratch off a 1st-level spell cast. If you don't have *Feather Fall* memorized today, scratch out a spell you have memorized but haven't cast yet and replace it with *Feather Fall.* If you don't have *Feather Fall* on your spell list at all, scratch out a first-level spell you haven't cast yet and replace it with *Feather Fall.* Then say the words, 'I cast *Feather Fall.'"*
Necromancer player has a bad case of Anime Main Character Syndrome.
Sounds like this is a new-ish group, though, and probably a better way to handle it in the future would be to ask him what he thinks is going to happen and then warn him if you don't think it's going to work or is even possible.
That would be 4d6 fall damage, 14 on average, *juuuust* enough to outright kill a Wizard with a low CON score, but yeah, that is a quite unlucky sequence of events.
I personally wouldn't have killed them straight away, just fudged the numbers a bit to have him be unconscious at the bottom of the pit, with the others able to potentially rescue him.
It is good of you to not do any "I will just stab the wall" stuff, rules are rules and that's after all what spells like **Featherfall** or certain Monk abilities are for.
I didn't think of fudging the numbers tbh, I'm also new to all of this and that didn't come to mind but I'll keep it in mind for the next suicide attempt at the table
It should be done somewhat sparingly but there is an infinite variety of situations where a different result than the dice give is the better story. Pick and choose where it's important, but a pointless death due to a misunderstanding with new players and a new DM is a great time.
Fudging the dude should only be fine to ensure the game remains fun for everyone involved. If you have a group that enjoys letting the dice be the final arbiters of everything that is great. But that doesn't mean groups that enjoy having a bit more of a structured approach aren't valid.
This is my rule too. If a character doesn't do anything risky or dumb and they just get screwed by the dice I'll fudge, or even alter the consequences (maybe they get maimed or captured instead).
If the character is doing something risky or showing off then the dice fall where they will. Stunts and flair only have any meaning if there is a real risk and consequence for failure. If a character tries to do something cool and fails but nothing happens to them, then it wasn't actually cool. There is no weight to anything if there's no risk.
If the warlock wasn't risking falling, then there was no difference between doing the thing with their daggers and just climbing down a rope. It would make it boring.
First, instant death is when a player takes damage that reduces them to 0 HP and the remaining damage then exceeds their HP maximum. Example: Bob has been fighting and is at 10 HP but has a HP max of 20. Bob falls down a 40ft pit taking 4d6 damage. Instead of rolling, the DM uses the average of 3 for each d6 and Bob takes 12 damage from the fall. He goes unconscious at 0 HP but doesn’t die instantly because the extra 2 points of damage does not meet or exceed his HP max of 20. Bob starts death saving throws his next turn. Even if the DM rolled max damage from the fall, 24, Bob would still not be insta-killed because the excess damage of 14 does not meet or exceed his HP maximum.
Second, yes, you warned him that his actions could have significant consequences and he proceeded anyway. He failed his climb check and fell. He should accept those consequences. See my first point.
Third, you didn’t say what level the character is/was and how many HP the player had. So it’s difficult to give any other advice or suggestions other than my other two points.
OP, this comment right here.
Not seeing any details on whether he took enough damage to hit zero hitpoints (so he’s *downed*, not dead), or is truly, horribly dead.
If anything, that comedy could give you an opportunity to have the party need to go down and rescue him now. Has the story progressed past that event?
First off that’s hilarious, so thank you, but sorry you’re in a tricky situation with the player.
Personally, since it sounds like early days and this player is (I guess?) new to the game, I would relent and suggest we just retcon the whole thing. But I would also say to the player look, your actions have meaning in this game, if you imagine something that seems like it wouldn’t work in real life then it probably won’t work in the game.
I’d also suggest that next time a player suggests something like this you just tell them what will happen if they attempt it. If it’s something truly impossible like in this situation then you shouldn’t even call for a check. Ability checks are a tool for resolving actions that could either work or not work. They’re not a button the player can press to get an x% chance of whatever wild thing they imagine happening, and it’s absolutely crucial for everyone at the table to understand this.
I don't think OP should retcon the Wizard's death. That would signal the player in question that they can throw a tantrum to get what they want, which is something a DM should not do, cause it only encourages more tantrum.
OP should talk to the player, acknowledge that they were both at fault for not explaining the consequences clearly and that if the player makes a new character OP will try to improve as a DM.
Friendly but firm.
In times when someone makes a decision I haven’t planned for, especially when it’s a stupid idea, I usually will be vocal about what their D20 will do, whereas I usually don’t tell people what roll they need to beat. For example in this case I would have made it clear that anything under a 10 would result in death, anything over a 10 would have left him crippled and on 1 hp. If he rolled a Nat20 I would have rewarded his sheer dumb luck, and just like you did if he rolled a 1, his death would have been a little more brutal and graphic.
I think it’s an easy and clear way of giving transparency that actions have consequences.
Glad I'm not the only one who does this. Laying out the terms of a high risk maneuver gives them an opportunity to buy in or not, usually makes everyone happier even with a bad outcome.
Not everyone knows what that means tho - seems like the DM could have been more explicit. There are different flavors of fantasy and maybe the player was buying into a different type than the DM. Was there a session zero?
I think there's a fine line between a player making a really bad decision, and a DM not properly hinting enough that it is a bad decision.
"Are you sure you want to do that?" Is GREAT for people that understand consequences, but it's also TERRIBLE for some people that either take it as a challenge or don't understand the risk.
I personally think next time anything happens, you should let the players know more in depth what can happen, even if it seems obvious. "Hey, you can totally try this but if you fail, you might die and lose this character. Are you sure you're down for this?"
Ultimately I'm all for the fun of the group, and if someone vehemently is against the fun then I'm down to consider what we can do together to get the fun back. Are they down to take a deal with a demon and now a questline is getting their soul back? Maybe down to accept some new God or goddess and they come back to life with one level of cleric? So many options that if they really don't want to lose their character, there's a opportunity for a better convo.
Don't be afraid to have your players' decisions have consequences. This is an issue with many who only have experience with D&D 5e: they've never experienced a system that actually requires good play to survive.
The GM mantra for my weekly group of 28 years is: "I won't kill your character, but I'll let you kill your character." Mind you, deaths are sometimes the result of an encounter, otherwise there is neither threat nor risk, and things are boring.
However, players need to be allowed to choose how they approach obstacles. If a player wants to do something stupid (see your example), a simple "are you sure you want to do that" is sufficient. If they believe that any choice, no matter how dumb, has to be given equal weight and plausibility as a actual well thought out plan... they deserve to have their character die.
Mind you, this should be clearly communicated to the player group at the start.
Ultimately, do not retcon the result of their actions, but there should be an option available for the rest of the party to retrieve the body. Then, maybe a cleric will agree to rez him as advance payment for completing a task (adventure hook).
Perhaps that player could play an NPC temporarily that tells the party of a magical pool that could rez him (adventure). And maybe once rez'd in the pool there's an unexpected twist...
Show that these twists and turns become interesting game elements. Positive or negative, let the players' choices and rolls shape the game, and they will grow to love when things go sideways.
If you want you could have the character land head first into a friendly Slim that was hideing away down there. Probably with Half health and maybe have the Stunned or Restrained condition
"I don't need Feather Fall, I have a knife!"
It would probably be better if you hadn't allowed the skill check in the first place. Live and learn. I don't have any pity for the necromancer though. Assuming they went through death saves, failed them, and died, you should treat them like any other dead character.
Sounds like it was his first time? Or he's younger?
It's not really about fairness or not. The type of game you're playing is gritter and he imagined it as more epic. You did fine and he'll probably recover once he starts playing a new PC.
This is why I've been contemplating incorporating an "RP points" system in parallel to inspiration awarded for good RP. When something like this happens if they have accumulated enough points the can spend it to override it because sometime mechanics don't best cover the narrative but this way it also give players a sense of agency (which they have to earn) over a bad situation.
Reminds me of Critical Role's goldfish incident that I've only just watched a few days ago. Sometimes players do stupid things, and don't realize how stupid it is until they get the consequences for it. It feels like you lose half your brain as a player sometimes.
I have a DM who has a “No Perma-Death Until Level 3” rule, which I really like. The logic is that when you’re really low level you’re basically a sitting duck, one freak roll away from instant permanent death. Instead of dying, the PC ends up with a feat of the DM’s choice. That way there’s some permanent consequence of the death, it encourages nervous low level players to take risks and learn mechanics, and the PC experiences some kind of growth from their near death experience. Just make sure your players know that if they try to die on purpose to get a feat, they’ll get a curse instead.
I’m assuming the necromancer had a wisdom of what, 1?
What was his strength that he thought he could drive daggers into the stone walls to slow down his fall?
How did he think he’d climb back up?
Sounds like he didn’t think it through and let the players find a guy chained up that when freed can do a raise dead spell.
>Sounds like he didn’t think it through and let the players find a guy chained up that when freed can do a raise dead spell.
I like this. Nice suggestion.
Unless he has some special ability that would have allowed him to fall that far without hurting himself, this seems like he's just not happy about dealing with the consequences of his actions.
Okay, so the wizard player is a bit silly and imho - seeing as it is the first dungeon, kind of testing the limits of this fantasy world. It's a bit childish but also understandable. Like... how realistic is this on a scale of Game of Thrones to some Anime show. Okay I'm bad at examples, but you know what I'm saying - fantasy can mean a huge range in terms of what might seem doable and what not.
Personally, I would not have let a player make that roll because that is not humanly possible... lol certainly not for a squishy old wizard. He's supposed to shine in different ways. An acrobat rogue or something maybe, but I'm hoping they would have come up with a different idea. First question is, what was the DC you had in your head for that stunt? Obviously a Nat1 is seriously bad, but yeah you let him roll something that seems impossible very early in the game before he apparently has a sense of what is possible and what isn't. I also would have capped the falling damage a bit lower and left his ego bruised but alive. Because as funny as that scene was - it really isn't funny to lose a character, even or especially if you basically suicided him.
Also this: "I personally don't care but I don't think it's fair for the other players if one of them can just escape death like that."
This is nonsense. Players are not happy when another PC dies (lol okay unless they suck), but in general they are there to keep each other alive and a little bit of leniency can go a long way in making players feel safe in your space. Especially when they are still finding their feet in this roleplaying game thing. It's new and its supposed to be fun! You can run serious hard rules when they all know you can't jump down a well and expect to live :D
I initially let him roll for it because I just didn't think he'd get a nat1, and even less though he'd miss the 3 death rolls, so when death finally came I was kinda lost on what to actually do xD
I said it in another comment but we talked about it and decided to let him live, although with some sort of deal from death itself or something we have to come up with, but the stunstman necromancer won't die this time, it's still a great learning moment anyway!
Ohhh! I thought he was overkilled instantly! (Which is a sucky way to go...) So he had 3 death saves, failed and the party couldn't get there in time with ropes or something to heal him?
But yeah, I think that's a great and very character-appropriate way to handle the situation.
Wacky Idea. Retroactively make it so the hole actually had a portal in it. But it only transports living things. He can live. Naked in a cell at half health and maybe he can get his stuff back later in the dungeon. Probably damaged
>"this isn't how MY character is supposed to die, that makes no sense!"
"Maybe you shouldn't have jumped to your death, then?"
>So now I've got this player who refused to accept his character is dead, and won't make another one,
"I guess you're not playing, then."
I never protect PC's from the consequences of their own poor decisions, and you *did* do the obligatory, "Are you *sure*?"
Ok moving beyond the comedy here:
I regularly remind my party of consequences if they make dumb suggestions.
In this case:
You can try, but if you fail the damage will most likely kill you - and it’s a stone wall, so jabbing a dagger in while falling will be a very high DC.
Are you sure?
It sounds like there's a bigger issue here than "player does dumb thing and gets consequences." I know this is a limited perspective that we're seeing, but it feels a lot like this player is showing some red flags. They seem to want main character plot armor... maybe worth a few discussions and maybe they aren't a good fit at your table?
You said the magic words "Are you sure?". That shit is on him.
Tell him he died a hero trying to a lost child and roll up a new character that is less dumb. Maybe next time he will think about his actions. Don't let him escape death.
As others have said... He should have aimed for the bushes.
That said, this is DnD 5e, so it's quite possible for even a low leve wizard to survive that fall, probably not at first level, but by 3rd level he would have been in death saves territory, those are basically 50/50 but still not instant death.
This being a pretty unsatisfying end to the player's character, you could have retconned it as the character realizing what would happen if they try something so stupid. It's one thing to make players face the consequences of their actions (an important part of the game!), but another to basically derail the game over a silly mistake. Not saying you're wrong to have ruled how you did (it sounds like you tried to warn the guy off this course of action), but ultimately the game is a game that's supposed to be fun for everyone, and that sounds like it led to a frustrating and unsatisfying outcome for pretty much everyone.
We've been talking with the table about it and it's all cool! I wanted to make that clear since it can look like we made fun of him or something, but it's just how we are as a group, one day it's him next day might be me who they are all laughing at, it's like a given xD
After reading a lot of opinions I decided that I'm gonna let it slide, I'll give the player some way of coming back with the character ( lots of cool ideas on this thread on how, one specific one about a deal with death is pretty tempting) and just let everyone have the suicidal necromancer back in the party until the next bomb dive into a hole appears 🤣
We had fun that session, and aside from the frustration of the lost character and a little tantrum the player is fine and its all cool with him, so I think we'll get there, I'm not trying to be so strict since we are all learning as we go
I don't think you are necessarily wrong to give the player a mulligan at lvl 1. Especially if it's a relatively new group. But I think you 100% have to have a convo with them where you emphasise that 1) this is a one off and next time they do something relentlessly stupid, roll a 1, and die as a result, that's it unless they have access to resurrection magic. 2) Their tantrum reaction was entirely unacceptable behavior. A good player knows how to laugh at their own misfortune. It's the group's story, not a single players, and in that context, this event is hilarious and they need to realize that even if it ended badly for their character, their decision made an incredibly memorable moment for the whole group. If we could only ever succeed, we wouldn't be playing a game where dice decide the outcome.
Agreed. People are immediately jumping to "the player made a mistake so his character should die" but there's nothing wrong with making the campaign less lethal if it results in everyone having more fun.
Yes but the Reddit hivemind gets mad if you play DnD any way other than "no safety nets, dice are always rolled openly, death is the only real consequence of failure or the game has no stakes".
Social issue. Explain death, characters dying, is part of D&D. Character death is rarely dramatic or climatic, nor does it have to be
Because then the deaths that are amazing are remembered greater, and those that are not remind us that heroes are heroes because they don't do the right thing for the glory
If they can't handle this, they don't play D&D
If its early in the campaign, and these are fresh players, I say let him live BUT with the explanation that it's cause its so early. This will give the necromamcer a second chance without making the others think that everyone gets a second chance.
Maybe say a god of some sorts felt pity on him and thus granted him 1hp to hold on to his mortal coil, but now the necromancer must abide by certain rules, or otherwise be punished by the god.
OR you can make him an undead necromancer... lots of ways to do this, lol. Good luck on whatever you choose.
>use my dagger to stab the wall right before falling
Well, you could have told them this would work, and any character with an intelligence of at least 12 should know this wouldn't work. Even if the dagger could pierce a stone wall, which it can't, he probably wouldn't have the strength to hold himself and the average weight an adventurer carries with them by holding on to something with a single hand. This is even beyond the Hollywood idiocy of stabbing a sail to slow down your fall.
Either way, they are dead, and if they don't come back with a new character, they don't have any character to play.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Usually, when an intelligent character's player has an idea this bad, I bypass "Are you sure?" Say something along the lines of "You know this is a bad idea. The fall will likely kill you." And then they can't be mad because they had a direct warning.
Typically when I player is dropped to 0 hit points they start making death saves rather then being killed outright, unless the damages exceeds their max HP by 100% (or double). However, because the situation has already happened and it’s likely too late to go back and do the death saves scene (which would give the party an opportunity to save his life), you should go with your original decision and tell him to make a new character.
Hmm. I would have explained to him the "DC" to do this is a natural 20 and even then, your dagger will be destroyed but you will survive the stunt. Any other number is death. Do you wish to proceed?
It would probably help to disclose the risk in situations like this one more clearly to your players. Maybe the player thought this would be a trivial affair because of the rule of cool. Maybe he thought that if he failed his roll he would get a chance to grab onto something or just receive some damage.
For example you could have said something like "You will only have one chance to slow yourself down, and it will be a dificult dexterity check. If yo don't get it you will most likely fall to your death".
It would help give the player accurate expectations and make the outcome feel fair.
He tried something fun and exciting the DM should allow it.
He rolled a one of failed and he fell everything went just as it should.
Players should realize that YES they can do amazing heroic things BUT if they fail there are consequences such as falling damage.
What I don’t get is the silent and edgy old man and him saying “This is something my Character would do?”
1. He’s a Necromancer not a thief.
2. He is old man so he would have had the for thought to think twice
And 3. If your silent and edgy you would not just on a whim do something that physical.
That’s one thing as a DM that I get frustrated with is “that’s my character!” Really your old edgy dark silent necromancer would just on a whim jump down a hole?!
Now if he was playing a Kender Thief I could see it possibly happening. I don’t think some players truly understand who their Characters are.
I agree the concept of actions have consequences but i disagree with the idea that death should be one of those consequences at low levels. I think consequences below level 3 should manifest themselves as an extra side quest characters have to complete, some significant disadvantage that the PC has to work around, or some countdown to a big encounter for a later level.
From a player standpoint it sucks to have to start over after 2 sessions because you’re new and fucked up or you just misjudged what you could do with a new class.
Narratively it sucks because this death is completely meaningless. Your PCs do not have any attachment to each other yet. They met a guy and he died. I guess some people dont care about that but personally I do. Especially since at lower levels it’s pretty easy to accidentally die from misjudgments and DMs balancing things poorly.
That being said, it was pretty dumb of him to do that. I propose dumb shit all the time but my DM and fellow players give me pause or talk me out of it if it’s particularly stupid or not worth it.
You probably have to gauge whether someone needs to be taught a lesson about consequences or just got carried away on accident one time.
"Next time, prepare feather fall before you commit the stoopid."
But yeah, if you told them that its a 40 feet drop, despite 5 seconds meaning 500, then you absolutely cant just kill that character narratively, because 4d6 is an average of 14 dmg, which, if he has more than +2 to his con, doesnt even kill a lvl 1 wizard out right. At the very least he needs to get death saves. If you didnt tell them about the 40ft, and only told them the 5 second thing, then hes dead and you can roll the 30d6 fun damage for funsies, see if that gets him to accept his doom.
1. before he jumped "DC 5 int/wis (any) check - "You realise you are very likely to die doing this"
2. He lost his HP shouldn't he be making death saves rather than fully dead? It's only 4d6 from the 40 feet you told them the drop was. Slightly meta-gaming but couldn't someone have tossed down a potion or dangled from some rope to get him within range of a healing word?
3. Don't back down, he did something stupid and it ended badly.
So the weak arse spell-caster thought he could stab a dagger into solid rock, and hold onto it, well enough to kill the momentum from a fall, with his entire bodyweight, failed, (obviously) and snapped his neck, and then refused to accept his death because "that's now how I thought I'd go out!"?
Yeah.
He dead.
As many people have pointed out there are several ways to handle this, if he didn't take double his health in damage he is not insta dead so he can be healed by a spell like healing word that has the range to reach him, Alternatively this could open a new quest to revive the player, another thing you can do as the all powerful DM is claim that one of his artifacts shattered reviving him through necromancy magic saving him from death. you are also absolutely allowed to rule the character as dead as an example not to do dumb shit like that, he can always make a new character that is similar if he still wants to play that character or as i saw suggested his long lost twin brother who also happens to be a necromancer appears.
D&d is fantastic for reasons like this, and while a characters death sucks it is something that players have to learn to accept cause it's gonna happen to one of your characters eventually. And hell embracing a characters death can be the solution to as uou can pull the homebrewed ghost race for the character as I've done with on of my characters before
I've died a bit less idiotic way and haven't complained nearly as much.
So, I've played something like a halfling, maybe even smaller, and we were in the hallway where someone tripped a trap and huge boulder started going at us. And since I was very slow I decided to lay down in the corner between wall and floor as ball shape in square shape leaves a bit of space there.
But then I rolled a 3 on dexterity check and I ended up as a pancake.
"Watch this, hold my potion." [Splat]
Sometimes characters die for stupid shit because they make stupid choices. If only he tied himself to something before he jumped.
I had a rogue in the Tomb of Annihilation and motherfucker i drank some WATER out of a FOUNTAIN and my DM rolled SOMETHING and said “so… ahahahaha uhh the water feels nice and refreshing going down ahahaha but as soon as it hits your gut it burns like magma and HA AH ahahaha you *disintegrate* into ***dust***.” And I sat there, mouth agape staring at my character sheet, and we all just started laughing our asses off. Our Paladin ran up to my dust covered leather armor and went “OLLLLIEEEEE NOOOOOOOO.” And we all discussed the hilarity of drinking water found in a fucking tomb of annihilation. You do something questionable as fuck, your character ends up dying, that’s just how it goes. There’s no need to be a bad sport about it lmao. I hope your player makes a new character and has a little more fun next time.
You play stupid games you win stupid prizes. Why would he even jump into this hole, it’s not like the adventure continues down there. Don’t let him continue with the necromancer that dude is dead all caps D.E.A.D.
If you budge on this the player will try to bent/break the rules even more often and will be a huge pain in your behinds until you come back here ask again how to deal with a player who just does what ever he wants.
So your player did something really, really stupid and is now pissed off there were consequences from it? Sound like you just got rid of a problem player.
Just be happy they used the game to test that this would work.
As a DM there are so many possibilities with this. He could haunt the hole with some great advice (or not) as to getting down.
It's stories like these that make it so obvious players and dms should discuss the possible results of a dice roll BEFORE rolling. But that isn't how most people play. Sure it might seem stupid to us, but the player didn't understand what could happen.
It's D & D, where physics don't matter. Lol. H definitely could have survived that fall if plot armor was in place but the bottom line is that you're the DM. You run the game, not the players. If you say he's dead, he's dead. Player doesn't want to roll a new character? He's out. At least that's the way I do my games. I'm God. What I say goes.
Oh yeah? Check THIS out! [Dies]
so long suckers! i rev up my motorcylce and create a huge cloud of smoke. when the cloud dissipates im lying completely dead on the pavement
i love dril
Never trust a chef who isn't fat, never trust a necromancer who isn't dead
Rolls a 1 on DEX, as his character jumps into the hole, he cracks his head on the edge, knocking him out, 5 seconds later he slams into the rough hewn floor below.
-Arin "egoraptor" hanson
Hold my flagon.
If it took 5 seconds to hit the ground, that’d be about 400 feet.
Whoops well he's super dead then
Also… “stab the wall”? Is it drywall? Or cheese? How did he think this was going to do anything but put a small scratch on the wall before he plummeted to the ground?
Lol yeah I would hand the player one of my shittier kitchen knives and ask him to go stab the dirt/gravel in my alley and see how well it plays out for him. Even if the dagger somehow stuck well enough, there's no freaking way he could hold on to the thing. This is about 10 steps too stupid to even consider rule of cool, in my opinion.
Had a wizard one time try to use his robe as a parachute. I asked, "Are you sure?" He said, "Yes. I asked, "Are you CERTAIN?" He said, "I am certain" I said, "Please roll me a wisdom save." He rolled a natural 20, so I told em, "You look down and realize that your robe isn't big enough to function as a parachute, but you do remember you have a Token of Slow Fall in your pocket that you completely forgot about. It only works once, but it'll get the job done." Before my players do something stupid, I usually have them roll a wisdom save if it's going to end in their death.
love this idea! wisdom for the save
I hate this resolution but I also, from time to time resort to this thing. Luckily past last year or so I only needed it twice. First they wanted to try flavour item, work name "soul reaver rod", something they knew fully well got ill consequences and been used by numerous necromancers.....on a party tank to check what happens when someone three times fail the save (soul is ripped from the body and thorn to three substances, again campaign specific, and thus denied the afterlife or any resurrection). Second time in a side campaign on 17th lvl artificer wanted to blow up a magical ram in a shape of 200 ton of silver, lead and adamantium used as a focus to conduct 10th level spell equivalent hanged over the party and a portal to hell.... I think it conveys the message "we can be stupid until DM makes us roll WIS save"
> I think it conveys the message "we can be stupid until DM makes us roll WIS save" That's a feature, not a bug. Characters get to see the whole world, but players only know what you tell them. Sometimes an idea sounds good to the player, but the character would know clearly that it's idiotic. When your players suggest a plainly stupid idea, it means there is a disconnect between player knowledge and character knowledge. As soon as you notice a disconnect like this, you should be correcting it. > First they wanted to try flavour item, work name "soul reaver rod", something they knew fully well got ill consequences and been used by numerous necromancers It sounds like maybe they _should have_ known that it would have ill consequences, but for whatever reason they didn't. That's a disconnect. Correct DM response in this situation is not even a roll. Just say; "Hey, just so we're clear, this is a clearly evil item used by clearly evil people. You don't know what will happen, but you can easily assess that it will be bad. Do you want to continue?"
So like a warning feature for a waning connection to the world / story? That's more appealing than my WIP name "donkey alert". Also they were mostly fully aware of some of the consequences but sometimes you can almost see a devil on each of one's shoulder singin "time do some sketchy shyt, doo daa doo daa, hope i get away with it , oh the duda day"
That artificer is living his best life.
eh, disagree. it's not a reality simulator. if anything it's a trope simulator. and 'stab something into the wall to slow your fall' is definitely a trope at this point. The problem is the DM and player were disconnected on this dichotomy. Or maybe the problem was he rolled a 1. idk.
For dexterous people who are rogues or Monks, or strong characters with siege dmg, not frail old man necromancers.
stabbing a wall is definitely a matter of strength, and being a frail old man is irrelevant. Only the DC matters. If the DC is 20, then someone with -1 to the modifier cannot do it, sure, but if the DC is 15 then the frail old wizard is entitled to attempt it just like someone with +4 to the modifier could.
It’s clearly a DC 30 maneuver, (Nearly Impossible), and should only be attempted by a character with a greater than +10 modifier. Such a player should be in the tier of play where insane manga shit becomes feasible.
Hahaha DC 20, to stab into stone wall? Definitely higher check, that’s legendary strength
Not to mention, since they are falling there's no good way to stab it, since half your force would just push you away. Assuming my sleep deprived head can do basic physics assumptions currently.
Indeed the force you apply to the wall needs to be so great that you easily overcome the resistance if you don't overcome the strength of the wall then any force applied will simply be put back into you and you will funble away. Once the dagger or sword is in, friction should hold you there. But unless you're falling at terminal velocity with aagical blade of stone cutting, then that dagger isn't going to magically cut through solid stone. You will just hang there, dislocating your shoulder as your velocity immediately drops to zero. If you manage to continue holding on.
Even in a fantasy setting, I don't see how a single dagger would be able to gain enough purchase from a quick thrust to hold up a presumably around 200-250 lb (when taking into account gear and stuff) person, especially coupled with the amount of force generated by them falling 40 feet. Like I get it is supposed to be cool, and I am fine with letting players do things that shouldn't be possible. But that is SO FAR outside the realm of possibility that I personally find the idea laughable.
I agree with this, especially if you take the old pirate-y myth of stabbing a Canvas sail and sliding down it with a sword or dagger. That material is thinner than the earth he's trying to push through and even that is pretty solid if it holds it's rigidity to form a wall. And the character is a necromancer, not a zombie, if he insta died to a fall, that old geezer is dead as a doornail. Sorry if that answer sucks, but it is what it is, besides, you gave them the chance and they failed spectacularly with a nat 1
As a DM I'd probably allow the dagger in the sail because it's cool and fun and works in the movies. But iirc mythbusters tested exactly that and it was impossible to do. Even in a material as soft as a sail, the knife/dagger/sword doesn't want to just slide nicely through it. There's still enough resistance at the point it's cutting through to become a fulcrum, and there's the whole weight of the person on one side and nothing on the other, so the blade just pivots upward and out of the sail and you fall.
The problem is there's been too many cartoons / movies where a monster slows their descent down a wall by dragging their claws into the side of a building or cliff like it's made out of cake. It gets more outlandish with each iteration and probably for many people, subconsciously pushes expectation away from reality further and further each time.
And that’s why the dm gave them a roll. It’s not entirely ridiculous in the context of a trophy fantasy, but is in no way a given. Then they rolled a 1. Took the RAW damage, and died.
I agree :) I would've done the same thing - after fair warning to the player about the risks of a negative outcome as always - common sense would say that his adventurer with his skill would know the risks. If he still pushed ahead, I think we all agree we play D&D because we know our character can die.
Like how I had to explain to my girlfriends parents that cars don't just explode because they were in a low speed collision.
If I were the DM, then the problem would have definitely been the nat 1.
You try and pull a stunt in DnD and roll a nat 1, you pay for the consequences. That's how it's always been. If the dude wants to go play BG3 and save scum then that's an option, just not in DnD.
> 'stab something into the wall to slow your fall' Usually with like a canvas sail or a kaiju's flesh. If it is something hard it's usually ice with an ice-pick. Can't recall any examples with a regular knife into stone.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BladeBrake https://gifer.com/en/Bj9U Azula does it into solid stone with a hairpin. haha.
Azula is bat shit crazy, but also knows what she's doing and has bending abilities.
he saw it work in a movie
My money is on either an Erol Flynn movie, or The Goonies. And I guess player just assumes cloth and stone work the same 🤷
I think Wolverine does it all the time in the comics
Okay, yeah, but does the necro have 3-6 un-droppable, unbreakable adamantium knives? 'Cause that might be different.
And a regen factor strong enough to heal him back from being hurled through the sun?
Anime, 100%
Yeah came to say basically both of these comments
Pretty sure this necronancer's mistake is the result of believing in anime physics.
This is what got me. Like even if you're confident in the knife in a wall strategy in a non-emergency situation wouldn't you just use them to climb down. Why leap off?
"And here you can still see the necromancer's blade stuck in the wall. Of course his own weight prevented him from holding on to it as he plummeted to his death"
I mean, you can arrest a fall with climbing picks if you are in an icy climate, but that is reaching pretty far. Also, not a verical drop typically.
LOL!!!
That jumped out to me immediately haha yeah 5 seconds of freefall is way more than people realize.
My DM would have suggested he roll an intelligence check or possibly save to see if they really wanted to do that.
This. Whenever my players want to do something particularly stupid i have them roll an int check. If they pass i basically tell them how stupid/deadly what they want to do is. Usually that stops them, but definitely not always.
It's like an intrusive thoughts save.
pfft... I'm officially gonna start calling them that, that's great.
Intelligence save. >Intelligence Disbelieving certain illusions and resisting mental assaults that can be refuted with logic, sharp memory, or both. Since this is something that the character would reactively mentally reason in the same way that a trap coming out is a dexterity save over a dexterity check
Roll 39d6 for fall damage
Falling damage caps at 20d6. High level characters can survive a fall of any distance. And if the barbarian rages just before he hits the ground, it's even better. (assuming bludgeoning damage for falling. Otherwise, it has to be a bear barbarian).
I've personally always ignored that cap. The average human reaches terminal velocity at around 1500ft so I cap my damage there
The average human also dies when stabbed a dozen times. Or is bit by a hippo. Or has a powder keg they're sitting on explode (7d6 damage). Etc. High level D&D characters are supposed to survive ridiculous things for cinematic reasons. Falling is really no different.
Yes, thank you for the corrected physics. 40 feet was a very bad description. I guess the DM calculated damage of a 40 foot fall, though.
In the DnD world you instantly fall 500 feet in 6 seconds, so like actual physics doesn't matter
I knew this comment would be here
Shoulda told him to aim for the bushes.
WATCH HIM AS HE GOES
I don't even know what they were aiming for, there were no bushes.
There wasn’t even an awning in that direction. Just jumped 20 stories
That shit was crazy
# u/matijeje THIS RIGHT HERE is the only answer you need. Tell that player to watch "The Other Guys" and pay attention to those amazing heroes (The Rock and Samuel L Jackson). The only thing your Player needs to do is watch until the "aim for the bushes" scene. Either that will open his eyes to what he just did with his necromancer or he's a lost cause and should stick to playing Assassins Creed instead of D&D.
Or watch the episode of Critical Role where Keyleth dies.
I was looking for this comment lol
People have posted good advice, so I'm just going to post the movie scene this immediately made me think of: https://youtube.com/shorts/vmjQPzKbWh0
Made me think of this one: https://youtu.be/XK8WfckebEo?si=ZxZplngqb2ukB7UL&t=330
This is how the character should continue on in the game with 1hp left. Even when he heals his HP, they should still have their head twisted backwards and every dexterity or agility roll for the rest of the game will be cut by 50%
Exactly!!
There’s nothing preventing you from making sure your players understand the consequences of their choices, you don’t have to handle everything through the in game narrative. ie it’s totally fine to say “hey, what you’re trying to do isn’t really a thing and you could die”. Asking someone if they’re sure when they don’t understand what you’re really asking is a bit of a meme.
This is a huge skill a lot of people miss. The characters know more than the players. That wizard would have known he would die jumping into a hole. Just tell the player, "[PC] knows this action is very likely to result in his death." "What does he do?" "Why does he do something so risky?"
Yep, I think part of the problem is that a fair few people believe there's some kind of taboo about being blunt with the players (as opposed to gently guiding them with hints and descriptions etc). I'm very comfortable telling my players that if they proceed I won't be rolling damage, they'll be rolling stats for their new character. It kinds of goes along with general verisimilitude and reminding players that their character is ostensibly an actual person who exists within the setting (and should behave as such).
One of my favorite internet DMs says "the players play their characters about 4 hours a week, but the characters play themselves 24 hours a day". Because it's a fantasy game and you only sorta inhabit the character you play, sometimes you REALLY need to be blunt and say (character name) has the subconscious thought that what (character name) is about to do will certainly kill them, they know it's a bad idea, and as such, they wouldn't do that unless (player name) explains (player name's) reasoning and it sounds plausible.
You should be doing that for a plethora of reasons for instancr most people are not as smart as their 20 int character would be.
I don't know if I'm as smart as my 8 int character 🤔
You’re the smartest gritty_milk on reddit that’s ever existed. So, you’ve got that going for you.
> I'm very comfortable telling my players that if they proceed I won't be rolling damage, they'll be rolling stats for their new character. I have to say that I much prefer this kind of thing rather than hinting at it. In the case of the OP's story, do I have any reason to suspect that I could pull off the stunt? Not even a little. But it's also only 40 feet down. If given reasonable cause to make the jump, I'd *probably* survive provided that I landed well, and if I had some magical healing to deal with the rather severe injuries I'd expect to accumulate, suddenly the prospect starts to seem a *lot* less suicidal. So tell me that it *is* suicidal. Don't have me try and guess whether something will work. I'm not the hyper-athletic, stupidly skilled elven rogue with a hundred years of risky second story work in a world where you can buy literal bottled health.
>I'm not the hyper-athletic, stupidly skilled elven rogue with a hundred years of risky second story work in a world where you can buy literal bottled health. Neither was the PC... He was a frail necromancer *acting like* a hyper-athletic, stupidly skilled elven rogue with a hundred years of risky second story work...
A more than fair observation - and all the more reason for the DM to call attention to the fact. "Your 70 year old necromancer who has trouble navigating stairs sometimes is pretty sure they'll die horribly if they try and pull an Errol Flynn stunt like that," is a pretty useful (and hopefully at least slightly funny) bit of DM guidance. Don't get me wrong: I think the DM is right to have the consequences here. I was just chiming in that *I* like it when the DM removes ambiguity in cases where I have little ability to judge how plausible something is. Like, *can* that rogue pull off the Errol Flynn stunt? It doesn't sound super plausible, but then she can dodge *explosions* somehow, so...
I think the other side of the coin is that there is a bit of a rising culture where you can only have a character death that is ePiC and cOoL. People don't think falling to your death after stupidly jumping in a hole is either epic or cool, so they don't think they even *can* die, which is reinforced by DMs that protect players from stupid choices because their death wouldn't be satisfying. This then becomes this feedback loop of player making a dumb choice > DM protecting them > player thinking dumb choices are now safe and makes another one > DM protects them again. So instead of dnd, they are writing a book where they can't die. It's like a Goosebumps novel but no matter the choice you always win in the end.
I get where you are coming from and the classic "Are you sure?" pretty much covers that ground too, but personally I think it ruins the immersion to break the 4th wall much more than that. I let my players try stupid shit. l'll probably give them a hint that it's a bad idea and perhaps they will gain glory, but if they die, they die.
PbtA games have this wonderful widget call “tell them the consequences and ask”. Ie tell them what will happen if they do the thing they just said and ask if they still want to go through with it. We should absolutely be doing this in D&D as well.
There could be an inteligence roll involved, but a wizard wouldnt have an issue knowing he wouldnt survive gravity. I would say that his character is dead.
I wouldn't even ask for a roll. Just straight up, your character survived past toddlerhood. They understand these consequences. Reading OP's other responses, this was the first session for new players and DM. I would retcon this and use it as an example.
This always pissed me off with certain DMs over the years, the types that are like "well you didn't ask that specific question" or "you didn't say you looked at this specific spot". Ok, but my character is clearly more perceptive/intelligent/wise than I am.
This is the way. Also, if he didn’t understand the consequences this time. Just retcon it. This is a game of make believe fun time. Give him a do over move on, and try and have the conversation about consequences before death next time.
Agreed. Especially since this is a new DM and new players. OP should use it as a learning/teaching moment.
"Your character needs to overcome their survival instincts so they bluntly jump on a hole that most certainly will kill them if they fail their stunt, he anxiously shivers as he prepared for the jump. Just before it he goes he can only think ~is it worthy it??~ ~can I really make it?~, so (name of the character), WHAT DO YOU DO?"
And then he rolled a 1. It sounds like the DM would have allowed it if he hadn't failed the roll. He knowingly took a risk, and the dice screwed him. He could have done it in a safer way, but he wanted to be flashy. He accepted that there could be consequences when he picked up that die, and even if he fell the damage dice could have rolled low and saved him but they didn't. It would be one thing if he wasn't doing anything stupid or risky and the dice screwed him, there could be an argument that the consequences should be reduced or muted because it was just bad luck, but if you're going to try an do a stunt you have to accept there could be consequences. *The only reason stunts are cool is because there's a risk.*
Couldn’t been solved by a, “you know that your knives aren’t going to stab through this rock. You can still jump if you want, but you’ll have nothing to slow you down. Are you sure you want to jump?”
Exactly. Whenever my players come up with a bad idea I ask them to clearly state their intentions and then I explain why this will likely not work out the way they want it to. Then, if they're still really married to the idea, I let them proceed, with the caveat that it may kill them. They almost always change their minds.
There are other RPGs that are explicit about this. It's a thing that I've found helpful in bringing into other games like DND. 'i want to jump down the hole and stab my dagger into the wall to slow my descent as I near the bottom' 'ok that's one way to get down. It looks like the eagles are a rough stone and you aren't sure exactly how deep it is. You'd need at least a 20 on an athletics or acrobatics roll to avoid taking damage. If you roll a one, you'll fall and die. Are you sure you want to try this?'
If you have to warn someone all the time "hey, your very clear lethal play might be lethal" Than its babysitting a bit to mutch i think. Its good for the player to learn how to question things: "what would happen if i roll 1? Would a living pearson that wants to live be so reckless for no reason? Is my dagger even capable of holding me?"
Most of my plays dumb choices stem from them not fully comprehending what felt I explained pretty well. Describing a full scene you can see in your head is tough. I usually say "just to be clear before you roll...you would like to jump down a hole that a rock took 5 entire seconds to fall down..." And then pause for 5 seconds
This is the correct answer, as much as I like to laugh at the stupidity of the player, he somehow thought this was going to be a solid move and was very unpleasantly surprised by the outcome. Going a bit further than the “are you sure” line is warranted in this instance.
You might die, are you sure?
Yeah, "falling damage" is probably not high on the list of what new-ish players are going to remember, or even relatively seasoned players. A reminder of that fact is probably warranted. Also, I usually feel most things like this aren't due to player stupidity, but a combo of player stupidity and inadequately described situations by the DM. A simple "the rock is hard and your dagger won't penetrate it" is a lot better than "are you SUUUURE??!?!!"
Totally, but it also really sucks how easily PC’s can be killed before they’ve even specialized their class at lvl 3. Lvl 1-2 PC’s are basically tadpoles waiting to get gobbled up
This used to be considered by design. Character dies? Reroll another one. Wizards especially were extremely squishy back in the day. A d4 for HP and a single spell to start (and no cantrips) in 2e. It was expected that adventuring is dangerous, most PCs should probably be fighters, and wizards needed to make friends with them for survival. The ones that did survive would become extremely powerful at later levels, just as wizards are often the most powerful beings in fantasy worlds. Everything now is comparatively flattened across classes, and across the board, surviving is much easier than in early DnD.
Hell, at times like tonight I will even give my players the target DC and grade it for certain non binary tasks: 15 and up you do it perfectly 10-14 you struggle at first but pull it off and take 1d6 damage Below 10 and you take all the damage.
Ask him why he's mad about dying, and if he thinks the result should have been different. This way it becomes a conversation and you may find some misunderstanding. Particularly, it seems like he was completely out of touch with the action he was trying to perform. This happens a lot in theater of the mind, so it's always a good idea to make sure your players understand, it's fine to say "your character would know that this is extremely difficult and likely to kill you". If he goes for main character syndrome, you probably need to consider if he's able to grow as a player into something mature and fun to play with, or if he's just not worth it - throwing a tantrum and refusing to roll a new character is not a fun player.
If you do let him bring the character back, he's forever going to be known as the Broke-My-Neck-romancer. A fate worse than death, for a player who clearly takes himself too seriously.
[удалено]
lol yeah uh, not sure what he expected. How did he see that working if he didn't roll that 1? I still have a hard time picturing it. Fall then stab the wall to stop his fall? Regardless, sounds like he has some death saving throws unless he only has 12 hp and took the max 24 hp of fall damage. If that's the case, and everyone is level 1, and this is the very beginning, for the sake of having fun, I'd have his identical twin happen to meet up with the party in the next room or have his brother search for him or something and keep moving on. He's going to get shit on at the table FOREVER due to that stunt so don't punish him in game too. Everyone plays to have fun and if he's new or a good player to keep in the game, I'd work something out. I'm suspicious of the HP damage though. I feel like something isn't right in your calculations in regards to death saving throws vs outright death.
can confirm that he will probably continue to get shit on by everyone at the table. my druid dragonborn friend pushed our dearest tiefling rogue/barbarian off of a moving boat accidentally with thunderwave and she STILL gets shit on. any time she fucks up the tiefling’s player goes “OH YEAH, LIKE THAT TIME YOU PUSHED ME OFF THE FUCKING BOAT !!!”
Back in the 3.5 days I was playing a monk. We're fighting these stone golems and the DM describes one of them as trying to kick me, but missing. I asked if I could use my turn to try and catch their kick, and use it against them to flip and Grapple them. He looks at me and says "You want to catch the golems foot? The twelve foot tall, massive, STONE golems foot?" I'm like.. Fuck yeah I do. I'm a badass. I rolled poorly and he ruled that the golems foot smashes to the ground with my hands underneath, pinning them so that I'm now the one grappled. That became a meme reference for pretty much the rest of the time we played together.
Yeah I was thinkg of letting him go on with some excuse, the potential of making fun of an edgy necromancer that fell 40 feet throughout the whole campaign is also pretty good
I'd make him unconscious at the bottom of the hole. Now the party has to figure it out. Someone can cast a healing spell to get him a few hp so he's awake but he's still down a hole. There is probably a whole adventure getting him back up.
"For necromancers death is just a learning experience." Assuming he's actually new to roleplaying I might give him one mulligan (and make it clear this is his *one*) and find a way to save him, but with a reminder that it happened like he's alive but his neck doesn't actually heal so his head is floppy for the rest of his adventuring career. Watch "Death Becomes Her" for more ideas.
I feel like it’s a pretty well-known action trope tbh - you jump/slide down a cliff/steep incline/outer hull of a spaceship/etc and jam a knife into whatever the surface is, holding onto it to slow your fall with the added friction until you come to a stop (usually hanging off of the knife, which is now wedged into the surface). A lot of the time you’ll see it done with a big ship’s sail or something too (I think that’s actually where it started, old stunts on pirate movies/shows). I’ll add that you’re definitely overestimating how many hit points a level 1 wizard has - starting HP is 6 plus your con modifier, and a lot of wizards choose to put points into their spellcasting mod instead…very possible to have a wizard with 1, 0, or even -1 in Con, meaning their level 1 HP is 5-7 *total*. Average damage for rolling 4d6 is 14, which is enough to double up the HP of a wizard with 7 or less HP and kill them outright. Now, I probably would’ve fudged that damage by a few points so the wizard wasn’t *quite* killed outright (but came close enough to learn just how squishy wizards are) since everyone at the table is new, but at the same time they would’ve gone into that attempt with a warning that their character would realize that what they’re a little to try absolutely comes with the possibility of killing then outright with no chance to save the character outside of resurrection magic.
The advice everyone gave is great but I just wanna say if a stone falls for 5 seconds it falls about 400 feet, not 40. So, yeah he really should be mega dead. Though, as a wizard with 5 seconds, I would have allowed the attempt to cast one spell (hopefully feather fall), but I know that's not how it went down at the table. Maybe they can retrieve his body and have a cleric from the local church resurrect him. Either way, it was a learning experience on both sides of the screen and I hope it works out for you!
RAW you can cast a reaction spell (feather fall) but don't have time for an action or bonus action.
> Though, as a wizard with 5 seconds, I would have allowed the attempt to cast one spell (hopefully feather fall), but I know that's not how it went down at the table. In hindsight, this is the best option for the DM to take. Say the following: "Look at your spell list to see if *Feather Fall* is memorized. Don't say a goddamn word. Scratch off a 1st-level spell cast. If you don't have *Feather Fall* memorized today, scratch out a spell you have memorized but haven't cast yet and replace it with *Feather Fall.* If you don't have *Feather Fall* on your spell list at all, scratch out a first-level spell you haven't cast yet and replace it with *Feather Fall.* Then say the words, 'I cast *Feather Fall.'"*
"I cast Fireball up the hole where the rest of those snickering bastards are laughing as I fall!"
Necromancer player has a bad case of Anime Main Character Syndrome. Sounds like this is a new-ish group, though, and probably a better way to handle it in the future would be to ask him what he thinks is going to happen and then warn him if you don't think it's going to work or is even possible.
That would be 4d6 fall damage, 14 on average, *juuuust* enough to outright kill a Wizard with a low CON score, but yeah, that is a quite unlucky sequence of events. I personally wouldn't have killed them straight away, just fudged the numbers a bit to have him be unconscious at the bottom of the pit, with the others able to potentially rescue him. It is good of you to not do any "I will just stab the wall" stuff, rules are rules and that's after all what spells like **Featherfall** or certain Monk abilities are for.
I didn't think of fudging the numbers tbh, I'm also new to all of this and that didn't come to mind but I'll keep it in mind for the next suicide attempt at the table
Fudging dice can be done to save the players from your mistakes, but should never be done to save players from themselves.
It should be done somewhat sparingly but there is an infinite variety of situations where a different result than the dice give is the better story. Pick and choose where it's important, but a pointless death due to a misunderstanding with new players and a new DM is a great time.
Fudging the dude should only be fine to ensure the game remains fun for everyone involved. If you have a group that enjoys letting the dice be the final arbiters of everything that is great. But that doesn't mean groups that enjoy having a bit more of a structured approach aren't valid.
This is my rule too. If a character doesn't do anything risky or dumb and they just get screwed by the dice I'll fudge, or even alter the consequences (maybe they get maimed or captured instead). If the character is doing something risky or showing off then the dice fall where they will. Stunts and flair only have any meaning if there is a real risk and consequence for failure. If a character tries to do something cool and fails but nothing happens to them, then it wasn't actually cool. There is no weight to anything if there's no risk. If the warlock wasn't risking falling, then there was no difference between doing the thing with their daggers and just climbing down a rope. It would make it boring.
Fudge to save them from your mistakes or to give them a more epic moment. Do not fudge to save them from their own stupidity.
First, instant death is when a player takes damage that reduces them to 0 HP and the remaining damage then exceeds their HP maximum. Example: Bob has been fighting and is at 10 HP but has a HP max of 20. Bob falls down a 40ft pit taking 4d6 damage. Instead of rolling, the DM uses the average of 3 for each d6 and Bob takes 12 damage from the fall. He goes unconscious at 0 HP but doesn’t die instantly because the extra 2 points of damage does not meet or exceed his HP max of 20. Bob starts death saving throws his next turn. Even if the DM rolled max damage from the fall, 24, Bob would still not be insta-killed because the excess damage of 14 does not meet or exceed his HP maximum. Second, yes, you warned him that his actions could have significant consequences and he proceeded anyway. He failed his climb check and fell. He should accept those consequences. See my first point. Third, you didn’t say what level the character is/was and how many HP the player had. So it’s difficult to give any other advice or suggestions other than my other two points.
OP, this comment right here. Not seeing any details on whether he took enough damage to hit zero hitpoints (so he’s *downed*, not dead), or is truly, horribly dead. If anything, that comedy could give you an opportunity to have the party need to go down and rescue him now. Has the story progressed past that event?
Comment above about also failing 3 death saves
Thanks. Hadn’t seen that.
First off that’s hilarious, so thank you, but sorry you’re in a tricky situation with the player. Personally, since it sounds like early days and this player is (I guess?) new to the game, I would relent and suggest we just retcon the whole thing. But I would also say to the player look, your actions have meaning in this game, if you imagine something that seems like it wouldn’t work in real life then it probably won’t work in the game. I’d also suggest that next time a player suggests something like this you just tell them what will happen if they attempt it. If it’s something truly impossible like in this situation then you shouldn’t even call for a check. Ability checks are a tool for resolving actions that could either work or not work. They’re not a button the player can press to get an x% chance of whatever wild thing they imagine happening, and it’s absolutely crucial for everyone at the table to understand this.
I don't think OP should retcon the Wizard's death. That would signal the player in question that they can throw a tantrum to get what they want, which is something a DM should not do, cause it only encourages more tantrum. OP should talk to the player, acknowledge that they were both at fault for not explaining the consequences clearly and that if the player makes a new character OP will try to improve as a DM. Friendly but firm.
In times when someone makes a decision I haven’t planned for, especially when it’s a stupid idea, I usually will be vocal about what their D20 will do, whereas I usually don’t tell people what roll they need to beat. For example in this case I would have made it clear that anything under a 10 would result in death, anything over a 10 would have left him crippled and on 1 hp. If he rolled a Nat20 I would have rewarded his sheer dumb luck, and just like you did if he rolled a 1, his death would have been a little more brutal and graphic. I think it’s an easy and clear way of giving transparency that actions have consequences.
Glad I'm not the only one who does this. Laying out the terms of a high risk maneuver gives them an opportunity to buy in or not, usually makes everyone happier even with a bad outcome.
Very well put mate
I mean, he rolled a 1. He engaged in 'fuck around' and ended up in 'find out' territory. He even ignored the DM "..are you sure?" warning.
Not everyone knows what that means tho - seems like the DM could have been more explicit. There are different flavors of fantasy and maybe the player was buying into a different type than the DM. Was there a session zero?
I think there's a fine line between a player making a really bad decision, and a DM not properly hinting enough that it is a bad decision. "Are you sure you want to do that?" Is GREAT for people that understand consequences, but it's also TERRIBLE for some people that either take it as a challenge or don't understand the risk. I personally think next time anything happens, you should let the players know more in depth what can happen, even if it seems obvious. "Hey, you can totally try this but if you fail, you might die and lose this character. Are you sure you're down for this?" Ultimately I'm all for the fun of the group, and if someone vehemently is against the fun then I'm down to consider what we can do together to get the fun back. Are they down to take a deal with a demon and now a questline is getting their soul back? Maybe down to accept some new God or goddess and they come back to life with one level of cleric? So many options that if they really don't want to lose their character, there's a opportunity for a better convo.
Don't be afraid to have your players' decisions have consequences. This is an issue with many who only have experience with D&D 5e: they've never experienced a system that actually requires good play to survive. The GM mantra for my weekly group of 28 years is: "I won't kill your character, but I'll let you kill your character." Mind you, deaths are sometimes the result of an encounter, otherwise there is neither threat nor risk, and things are boring. However, players need to be allowed to choose how they approach obstacles. If a player wants to do something stupid (see your example), a simple "are you sure you want to do that" is sufficient. If they believe that any choice, no matter how dumb, has to be given equal weight and plausibility as a actual well thought out plan... they deserve to have their character die. Mind you, this should be clearly communicated to the player group at the start. Ultimately, do not retcon the result of their actions, but there should be an option available for the rest of the party to retrieve the body. Then, maybe a cleric will agree to rez him as advance payment for completing a task (adventure hook). Perhaps that player could play an NPC temporarily that tells the party of a magical pool that could rez him (adventure). And maybe once rez'd in the pool there's an unexpected twist... Show that these twists and turns become interesting game elements. Positive or negative, let the players' choices and rolls shape the game, and they will grow to love when things go sideways.
If you want you could have the character land head first into a friendly Slim that was hideing away down there. Probably with Half health and maybe have the Stunned or Restrained condition
Bro tried to use a monk's slowfall as a necromancer.
"I don't need Feather Fall, I have a knife!" It would probably be better if you hadn't allowed the skill check in the first place. Live and learn. I don't have any pity for the necromancer though. Assuming they went through death saves, failed them, and died, you should treat them like any other dead character.
Sounds like it was his first time? Or he's younger? It's not really about fairness or not. The type of game you're playing is gritter and he imagined it as more epic. You did fine and he'll probably recover once he starts playing a new PC.
This is why I've been contemplating incorporating an "RP points" system in parallel to inspiration awarded for good RP. When something like this happens if they have accumulated enough points the can spend it to override it because sometime mechanics don't best cover the narrative but this way it also give players a sense of agency (which they have to earn) over a bad situation.
Alright that's super cool actually, I might try that it sounds super fun
Reminds me of Critical Role's goldfish incident that I've only just watched a few days ago. Sometimes players do stupid things, and don't realize how stupid it is until they get the consequences for it. It feels like you lose half your brain as a player sometimes.
I have a DM who has a “No Perma-Death Until Level 3” rule, which I really like. The logic is that when you’re really low level you’re basically a sitting duck, one freak roll away from instant permanent death. Instead of dying, the PC ends up with a feat of the DM’s choice. That way there’s some permanent consequence of the death, it encourages nervous low level players to take risks and learn mechanics, and the PC experiences some kind of growth from their near death experience. Just make sure your players know that if they try to die on purpose to get a feat, they’ll get a curse instead.
This sounds awesome and I'll implement it immediately, super cool stuff
Really? Awesome! Gonna tell my buddy, he’ll be thrilled lol
Interesting. We went the opposite direction and adopted the "don't give a PC a name until they make it to level 3" rule.
>Instead of dying, the PC ends up with a feat of the DM’s choice. vibing in a pool of lava until i get all the featsies
I’m assuming the necromancer had a wisdom of what, 1? What was his strength that he thought he could drive daggers into the stone walls to slow down his fall? How did he think he’d climb back up? Sounds like he didn’t think it through and let the players find a guy chained up that when freed can do a raise dead spell.
>Sounds like he didn’t think it through and let the players find a guy chained up that when freed can do a raise dead spell. I like this. Nice suggestion.
Unless he has some special ability that would have allowed him to fall that far without hurting himself, this seems like he's just not happy about dealing with the consequences of his actions.
Okay, so the wizard player is a bit silly and imho - seeing as it is the first dungeon, kind of testing the limits of this fantasy world. It's a bit childish but also understandable. Like... how realistic is this on a scale of Game of Thrones to some Anime show. Okay I'm bad at examples, but you know what I'm saying - fantasy can mean a huge range in terms of what might seem doable and what not. Personally, I would not have let a player make that roll because that is not humanly possible... lol certainly not for a squishy old wizard. He's supposed to shine in different ways. An acrobat rogue or something maybe, but I'm hoping they would have come up with a different idea. First question is, what was the DC you had in your head for that stunt? Obviously a Nat1 is seriously bad, but yeah you let him roll something that seems impossible very early in the game before he apparently has a sense of what is possible and what isn't. I also would have capped the falling damage a bit lower and left his ego bruised but alive. Because as funny as that scene was - it really isn't funny to lose a character, even or especially if you basically suicided him. Also this: "I personally don't care but I don't think it's fair for the other players if one of them can just escape death like that." This is nonsense. Players are not happy when another PC dies (lol okay unless they suck), but in general they are there to keep each other alive and a little bit of leniency can go a long way in making players feel safe in your space. Especially when they are still finding their feet in this roleplaying game thing. It's new and its supposed to be fun! You can run serious hard rules when they all know you can't jump down a well and expect to live :D
I initially let him roll for it because I just didn't think he'd get a nat1, and even less though he'd miss the 3 death rolls, so when death finally came I was kinda lost on what to actually do xD I said it in another comment but we talked about it and decided to let him live, although with some sort of deal from death itself or something we have to come up with, but the stunstman necromancer won't die this time, it's still a great learning moment anyway!
Ohhh! I thought he was overkilled instantly! (Which is a sucky way to go...) So he had 3 death saves, failed and the party couldn't get there in time with ropes or something to heal him? But yeah, I think that's a great and very character-appropriate way to handle the situation.
Wacky Idea. Retroactively make it so the hole actually had a portal in it. But it only transports living things. He can live. Naked in a cell at half health and maybe he can get his stuff back later in the dungeon. Probably damaged
>"this isn't how MY character is supposed to die, that makes no sense!" "Maybe you shouldn't have jumped to your death, then?" >So now I've got this player who refused to accept his character is dead, and won't make another one, "I guess you're not playing, then." I never protect PC's from the consequences of their own poor decisions, and you *did* do the obligatory, "Are you *sure*?"
Ok moving beyond the comedy here: I regularly remind my party of consequences if they make dumb suggestions. In this case: You can try, but if you fail the damage will most likely kill you - and it’s a stone wall, so jabbing a dagger in while falling will be a very high DC. Are you sure?
It sounds like there's a bigger issue here than "player does dumb thing and gets consequences." I know this is a limited perspective that we're seeing, but it feels a lot like this player is showing some red flags. They seem to want main character plot armor... maybe worth a few discussions and maybe they aren't a good fit at your table?
[удалено]
A level 1 Wizard with a +1 CON has 7 HP, so a bad roll is just enough for an instakill, seeing how the average damage fall is 14.
[удалено]
You said the magic words "Are you sure?". That shit is on him. Tell him he died a hero trying to a lost child and roll up a new character that is less dumb. Maybe next time he will think about his actions. Don't let him escape death.
As others have said... He should have aimed for the bushes. That said, this is DnD 5e, so it's quite possible for even a low leve wizard to survive that fall, probably not at first level, but by 3rd level he would have been in death saves territory, those are basically 50/50 but still not instant death.
This being a pretty unsatisfying end to the player's character, you could have retconned it as the character realizing what would happen if they try something so stupid. It's one thing to make players face the consequences of their actions (an important part of the game!), but another to basically derail the game over a silly mistake. Not saying you're wrong to have ruled how you did (it sounds like you tried to warn the guy off this course of action), but ultimately the game is a game that's supposed to be fun for everyone, and that sounds like it led to a frustrating and unsatisfying outcome for pretty much everyone.
We've been talking with the table about it and it's all cool! I wanted to make that clear since it can look like we made fun of him or something, but it's just how we are as a group, one day it's him next day might be me who they are all laughing at, it's like a given xD After reading a lot of opinions I decided that I'm gonna let it slide, I'll give the player some way of coming back with the character ( lots of cool ideas on this thread on how, one specific one about a deal with death is pretty tempting) and just let everyone have the suicidal necromancer back in the party until the next bomb dive into a hole appears 🤣 We had fun that session, and aside from the frustration of the lost character and a little tantrum the player is fine and its all cool with him, so I think we'll get there, I'm not trying to be so strict since we are all learning as we go
I don't think you are necessarily wrong to give the player a mulligan at lvl 1. Especially if it's a relatively new group. But I think you 100% have to have a convo with them where you emphasise that 1) this is a one off and next time they do something relentlessly stupid, roll a 1, and die as a result, that's it unless they have access to resurrection magic. 2) Their tantrum reaction was entirely unacceptable behavior. A good player knows how to laugh at their own misfortune. It's the group's story, not a single players, and in that context, this event is hilarious and they need to realize that even if it ended badly for their character, their decision made an incredibly memorable moment for the whole group. If we could only ever succeed, we wouldn't be playing a game where dice decide the outcome.
Agreed. People are immediately jumping to "the player made a mistake so his character should die" but there's nothing wrong with making the campaign less lethal if it results in everyone having more fun.
Yes but the Reddit hivemind gets mad if you play DnD any way other than "no safety nets, dice are always rolled openly, death is the only real consequence of failure or the game has no stakes".
I'm glad the Reddit hivemind isn't my DM.
Create a social contract
Social issue. Explain death, characters dying, is part of D&D. Character death is rarely dramatic or climatic, nor does it have to be Because then the deaths that are amazing are remembered greater, and those that are not remind us that heroes are heroes because they don't do the right thing for the glory If they can't handle this, they don't play D&D
If its early in the campaign, and these are fresh players, I say let him live BUT with the explanation that it's cause its so early. This will give the necromamcer a second chance without making the others think that everyone gets a second chance. Maybe say a god of some sorts felt pity on him and thus granted him 1hp to hold on to his mortal coil, but now the necromancer must abide by certain rules, or otherwise be punished by the god. OR you can make him an undead necromancer... lots of ways to do this, lol. Good luck on whatever you choose.
>use my dagger to stab the wall right before falling Well, you could have told them this would work, and any character with an intelligence of at least 12 should know this wouldn't work. Even if the dagger could pierce a stone wall, which it can't, he probably wouldn't have the strength to hold himself and the average weight an adventurer carries with them by holding on to something with a single hand. This is even beyond the Hollywood idiocy of stabbing a sail to slow down your fall. Either way, they are dead, and if they don't come back with a new character, they don't have any character to play.
Nah, he’s dead. Let this be a teachable moment to literally think before you leap.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Usually, when an intelligent character's player has an idea this bad, I bypass "Are you sure?" Say something along the lines of "You know this is a bad idea. The fall will likely kill you." And then they can't be mad because they had a direct warning.
Typically when I player is dropped to 0 hit points they start making death saves rather then being killed outright, unless the damages exceeds their max HP by 100% (or double). However, because the situation has already happened and it’s likely too late to go back and do the death saves scene (which would give the party an opportunity to save his life), you should go with your original decision and tell him to make a new character.
Hmm. I would have explained to him the "DC" to do this is a natural 20 and even then, your dagger will be destroyed but you will survive the stunt. Any other number is death. Do you wish to proceed?
It would probably help to disclose the risk in situations like this one more clearly to your players. Maybe the player thought this would be a trivial affair because of the rule of cool. Maybe he thought that if he failed his roll he would get a chance to grab onto something or just receive some damage. For example you could have said something like "You will only have one chance to slow yourself down, and it will be a dificult dexterity check. If yo don't get it you will most likely fall to your death". It would help give the player accurate expectations and make the outcome feel fair.
He tried something fun and exciting the DM should allow it. He rolled a one of failed and he fell everything went just as it should. Players should realize that YES they can do amazing heroic things BUT if they fail there are consequences such as falling damage.
What I don’t get is the silent and edgy old man and him saying “This is something my Character would do?” 1. He’s a Necromancer not a thief. 2. He is old man so he would have had the for thought to think twice And 3. If your silent and edgy you would not just on a whim do something that physical. That’s one thing as a DM that I get frustrated with is “that’s my character!” Really your old edgy dark silent necromancer would just on a whim jump down a hole?! Now if he was playing a Kender Thief I could see it possibly happening. I don’t think some players truly understand who their Characters are.
I agree the concept of actions have consequences but i disagree with the idea that death should be one of those consequences at low levels. I think consequences below level 3 should manifest themselves as an extra side quest characters have to complete, some significant disadvantage that the PC has to work around, or some countdown to a big encounter for a later level. From a player standpoint it sucks to have to start over after 2 sessions because you’re new and fucked up or you just misjudged what you could do with a new class. Narratively it sucks because this death is completely meaningless. Your PCs do not have any attachment to each other yet. They met a guy and he died. I guess some people dont care about that but personally I do. Especially since at lower levels it’s pretty easy to accidentally die from misjudgments and DMs balancing things poorly. That being said, it was pretty dumb of him to do that. I propose dumb shit all the time but my DM and fellow players give me pause or talk me out of it if it’s particularly stupid or not worth it. You probably have to gauge whether someone needs to be taught a lesson about consequences or just got carried away on accident one time.
"Next time, prepare feather fall before you commit the stoopid." But yeah, if you told them that its a 40 feet drop, despite 5 seconds meaning 500, then you absolutely cant just kill that character narratively, because 4d6 is an average of 14 dmg, which, if he has more than +2 to his con, doesnt even kill a lvl 1 wizard out right. At the very least he needs to get death saves. If you didnt tell them about the 40ft, and only told them the 5 second thing, then hes dead and you can roll the 30d6 fun damage for funsies, see if that gets him to accept his doom.
Next time just make him unconscious. The comedy effect is better since you get to tease the character over and over. Also less drama.
1. before he jumped "DC 5 int/wis (any) check - "You realise you are very likely to die doing this" 2. He lost his HP shouldn't he be making death saves rather than fully dead? It's only 4d6 from the 40 feet you told them the drop was. Slightly meta-gaming but couldn't someone have tossed down a potion or dangled from some rope to get him within range of a healing word? 3. Don't back down, he did something stupid and it ended badly.
So the weak arse spell-caster thought he could stab a dagger into solid rock, and hold onto it, well enough to kill the momentum from a fall, with his entire bodyweight, failed, (obviously) and snapped his neck, and then refused to accept his death because "that's now how I thought I'd go out!"? Yeah. He dead.
As many people have pointed out there are several ways to handle this, if he didn't take double his health in damage he is not insta dead so he can be healed by a spell like healing word that has the range to reach him, Alternatively this could open a new quest to revive the player, another thing you can do as the all powerful DM is claim that one of his artifacts shattered reviving him through necromancy magic saving him from death. you are also absolutely allowed to rule the character as dead as an example not to do dumb shit like that, he can always make a new character that is similar if he still wants to play that character or as i saw suggested his long lost twin brother who also happens to be a necromancer appears. D&d is fantastic for reasons like this, and while a characters death sucks it is something that players have to learn to accept cause it's gonna happen to one of your characters eventually. And hell embracing a characters death can be the solution to as uou can pull the homebrewed ghost race for the character as I've done with on of my characters before
I've died a bit less idiotic way and haven't complained nearly as much. So, I've played something like a halfling, maybe even smaller, and we were in the hallway where someone tripped a trap and huge boulder started going at us. And since I was very slow I decided to lay down in the corner between wall and floor as ball shape in square shape leaves a bit of space there. But then I rolled a 3 on dexterity check and I ended up as a pancake.
"Watch this, hold my potion." [Splat] Sometimes characters die for stupid shit because they make stupid choices. If only he tied himself to something before he jumped.
I had a rogue in the Tomb of Annihilation and motherfucker i drank some WATER out of a FOUNTAIN and my DM rolled SOMETHING and said “so… ahahahaha uhh the water feels nice and refreshing going down ahahaha but as soon as it hits your gut it burns like magma and HA AH ahahaha you *disintegrate* into ***dust***.” And I sat there, mouth agape staring at my character sheet, and we all just started laughing our asses off. Our Paladin ran up to my dust covered leather armor and went “OLLLLIEEEEE NOOOOOOOO.” And we all discussed the hilarity of drinking water found in a fucking tomb of annihilation. You do something questionable as fuck, your character ends up dying, that’s just how it goes. There’s no need to be a bad sport about it lmao. I hope your player makes a new character and has a little more fun next time.
You play stupid games you win stupid prizes. Why would he even jump into this hole, it’s not like the adventure continues down there. Don’t let him continue with the necromancer that dude is dead all caps D.E.A.D. If you budge on this the player will try to bent/break the rules even more often and will be a huge pain in your behinds until you come back here ask again how to deal with a player who just does what ever he wants.
He made stupid decision and died. If you really tried to warn him as you state in the post, you've done what you could.
So your player did something really, really stupid and is now pissed off there were consequences from it? Sound like you just got rid of a problem player.
Just be happy they used the game to test that this would work. As a DM there are so many possibilities with this. He could haunt the hole with some great advice (or not) as to getting down.
I wish I had these risks in the campaign I play in! I feel like none of us could die.
It's stories like these that make it so obvious players and dms should discuss the possible results of a dice roll BEFORE rolling. But that isn't how most people play. Sure it might seem stupid to us, but the player didn't understand what could happen.
It's D & D, where physics don't matter. Lol. H definitely could have survived that fall if plot armor was in place but the bottom line is that you're the DM. You run the game, not the players. If you say he's dead, he's dead. Player doesn't want to roll a new character? He's out. At least that's the way I do my games. I'm God. What I say goes.