D&D 5E This Game is Deadly

[Ruin Explorer]

In my experience, smart players that don't blindly charge in and that are not on the very wrong end of variance do fine. Dumb, unlucky players will lose PCs.

Not my experience.

Unlucky players lose PCs. Associating that with "dumb" runs against both my experience and the math. It particularly runs against the math here.

Dumb, as in genuinely thick, players actually pretty rarely lose PCs in my experience, because they're usually too dumb to try anything risky.

Roleplayers who play PCs who are brave/honest/upright frequently lose PCs at low levels in editions with low starting HP relative to damage.

Darwin would have been a D&D player.

Perhaps, but not his slightly confused booster/competitor Herbert Spencer, you coined the misleading and inaccurate phrase "survival of the fittest".

Anyway, editions of D&D where monsters hit for more damage than most PCs have HP at low levels are very random at low levels, and don't reflect well on good play or smart play or what-have-you.

Once the PCs have a few levels on them, and this is no longer the issue, THEN D&D becomes more about smart/good play.

 

[Lidgar]

I think our group got to level 3 within a couple of hours with the starter set, there were only 3 of us playing though so it may have been a bit quicker than normal.

That does seem very fast. It took an 8 hour session for our group of 5 PC's to get to 3rd level playing the starter set.

While we had some folks go to 0 hp, no one died. The DM actually threw in a few extra critters to make sure it was challenging enough - which it certainly was. He kept rolling criticals...over and over again...

I was running the cleric, and liked the limited resources you have at 1st and 2nd level to heal the party. Certainly feels more like the challenges faced in earlier editions (1e/2e) at those levels.

 

[jgsugden]

It isn't a game if you don't have a chance to lose.

If a party uses great tactics, and the DM designs a well balanced encolunter, the chance of death should be small - but present. If the PCs make mistakes or get pretty unlucky, the Reaper should come knocking. That was the way in AD&D, 2E, and somewhat in 3E....

And death isn't a bad thing in the game.

You're a player, and you play characters... and if one dies and cannot be recovered, you get the chance to bring in another. Most of my favorite memories from RPGs are the deaths of treasured characters that went out in blazes of glory - sometimes heroi - sometimes comedic - and sometimes just cruelly unlucky. One of my favorites was the paladin that was egged on into charging an ogre by the halfing rogue - the ogre which took an Attack of Opportunity, rolled a natural 20, then rolled high enough to hit on the critical confirmation roll, then rolled max damage on the double damage - and killed my paladin in one hit from max hps... I friggin loved it. A sudden and brutal end filled with great role playing and a huge unlucky streak (a 1 in 20,000 chance).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It isn't a game if you don't have a chance to lose.

Sure, and it's a game of chance, not of skill, and certainly not much of a role-playing game, if you can lose entirely simply because some dice rolled one way, despite you playing smart.

D&D isn't very good at being a game of chance. There's a reason most people enjoy levels where things even out a bit the most, and why almost no groups play some sort of "endless 1st level" game.

You're a player, and you play characters... and if one dies and cannot be recovered, you get the chance to bring in another.

I'm glad you enjoy that.

A lot of players don't. That doesn't mean "D&D isn't the game for them", because D&D is only like for 1, maybe 2 levels in 3E and 5E (never in 4E), so that means for most of D&D's history, it hasn't been like that.

For you, a new PC is apparently always "YAY!". For a lot of players, it's depressing, boring, annoying, and especially so if the death was random bad luck.

Going by these boards, I think there are very few players who enjoy dying the way you say you do.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I would say that the Starter set is "normal adventuring", and it starts at level 1. If you want to play a less deadly 5e game, you should probably start at level 2+, but I wouldn't say starting at level 3 is the norm. I will check with my group to see what they prefer, I don't actually mind level 1 and 2, since it's only supposed to be 1-2 sesions before you are level 3.

Just passing on what I've heard from wizards. They say level 3 is the old level 1.

My interpretation is that 1st level is meant to represent 1st level in most editions of D&D. Since 4e characters start out more competent, you can start 5e characters at 3rd level to better approximate the power level of a starting 4e character.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Not my experience.

Unlucky players lose PCs. Associating that with "dumb" runs against both my experience and the math. It particularly runs against the math here.

Dumb, as in genuinely thick, players actually pretty rarely lose PCs in my experience, because they're usually too dumb to try anything risky.

Roleplayers who play PCs who are brave/honest/upright frequently lose PCs at low levels in editions with low starting HP relative to damage.

Anything risky?

I would consider a plan of "CHARGE!" against a force of unknown capability to appear right next to the definition of risky in the dictionary.

Evil wins because good is dumb has a solid foundation of truth to it. Taking risks isn't always a dumb thing to do. Sometimes there isn't a better option. Taking risks you don't have to because you can't be bothered to think of anything else IS dumb and will be fatal eventually.

Perhaps, but not his slightly confused booster/competitor Herbert Spencer, you coined the misleading and inaccurate phrase "survival of the fittest".

Anyway, editions of D&D where monsters hit for more damage than most PCs have HP at low levels are very random at low levels, and don't reflect well on good play or smart play or what-have-you.

Once the PCs have a few levels on them, and this is no longer the issue, THEN D&D becomes more about smart/good play.

One can demonstrate smart or poor play in any rule set, the numbers don't matter much in this regard. All that is required is to be aware of the assumptions under which you are operating (the game rules) and make decisions based on that knowledge in matter consistent with victory and survival.

In early TSR D&D this means knowing that you are fragile at first level and should only engage in combat on your terms if you can help it. This means a good deal of scouting, running away, and setting up kill zones along with a heavy sprinkling of parley and negotiation when such things can be employed.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I'm not complaining about it.
Combat is fast, which is what I want.
But party deaths will occur in greater numbers.
Best to have 2 clerics in the party with Revivify.
Have Revivify scrolls available as gifts or treasure during low level adventures.

Personally I'd rather just play 4e and knock off a few monster hit points; that way I get the best of both worlds.

There should always be a chance on any given adventure that you return with fewer XPs than you started out with, IMO.

Are level-draining monsters back, or did you mean to type 'PCs'?

 

[Boarstorm]

Are level-draining monsters back, or did you mean to type 'PCs'?

I think he meant earlier edition's Raise Dead spells bringing you back a level lower than when you died.

But interestingly, monsters that used to drain levels now drain maximum hit points (temporarily). It's an interesting mechanic to be sure.

 

[Nebulous]

I think he meant earlier edition's Raise Dead spells bringing you back a level lower than when you died.

But interestingly, monsters that used to drain levels now drain maximum hit points (temporarily). It's an interesting mechanic to be sure.

I prefer that. I always hated anything that drained a whole level, it was so discouraging you might as well start a new character.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I prefer that. I always hated anything that drained a whole level, it was so discouraging you might as well start a new character.

Really? If I was knocked from 6th to 5th level that would kind of suck but still be wayyy better than scrapping the character and starting over at level one.