D&D 5E This Game is Deadly

[Tony Vargas]

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.

At the level you get revivify, you should not be getting frequent PC deaths.


While character deaths are a potential issue at Apprentice tier, and arguably make that tier's professed use as a training ground for new players a little suspect or problematic, by the numbers, the problem should disappear at higher levels when doing a character's /full hps in one shot/ should become pretty darn improbable.

 

[TerraDave]

I think you're right, the 1st level characters aren't that weak. The problem is the bugbear included in the starting area is tough. He has 27 hp, and the Brute and Surprise Attack abilities. If you take the standard damage and he doesn't surprise attack, that's still 11 damage, which is enough to down a rogue, wizard, and likely a cleric in one hit.

Dying to goblins because you went off into the woods by yourself is one thing. Dying in one hit from full health to the leader in the very first 4 room area through no fault of your own can be a tough pill to swallow. Were bugbears always this tough? I don't recall. Looks like according to the SRD version, they were 16 hp, 1d8+2 damage critters. They got massively buffed for 5E I guess!

Bugbears where the 3HD humanoid, between gnolls and ogres. They always had the stealth thing, and could surprise, at great cost to their opponents, at least in AD&D.

Lets look at some encounter stats

This tough old bugbear is equal to an ogre (AC 5, HD 4 + 1, hp 18, #AT 1, D 3-12 (d10 + 2), Save F 4, ML 9). He has a pouch with a key, 29 platinum pieces, and 3 50 g.p. gems in it. With him is a female bugbear equal to the male (AC 5, HD3 + 1, hp 12, #AT1, D 2-8, Save F 3, ML 9).

and

6 BUGBEARS (H.P.: 17, 14,12,2xI 1,9): AC 5; HD 3 + I; Move 9“; 1 attack for 2-8 hit points damage each....They surprise opponents 50% of the time...

The first is from B2, keep on the borderlands, the second from T1 village of homlet. Each is surrounded by other allies, who they can try to alert. They are supposed to be played clever. (In B2, in the first bugbear encounter, they to trick the party by pretending to eat, then attacking with meat skewers). They are a little farther in their respective adventures, and your adventurers could be 2nd level. Party may also be a bit bigger (in both B2 and T1 you can recruit help, thoug in T1, the help may turn on you). But still, the 2nd level cleric, for example, will have about 9 hp and 1-2 spells, per day.

Its a deadly game.

 

[wwanno]

Dying to goblins because you went off into the woods by yourself is one thing. Dying in one hit from full health to the leader in the very first 4 room area through no fault of your own can be a tough pill to swallow. Were bugbears always this tough? I don't recall. Looks like according to the SRD version, they were 16 hp, 1d8+2 damage critters. They got massively buffed for 5E I guess!

It is a hard fight (as I read, I have to play it yet) but if the bugbear hits the rogue/wizard/cleric is becouse the fighter didn't play his role of tank. Everyone turns to the cleric when in need of ealing, everyone should turn to the warrior when the big bad boy shows up.

Looking at the topic title:
"This game is deadly".
My reaction:
"What???? The moathouse is deadly!!!".
(Actually impossible at first level...)

 

[wwanno]

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.

Maybe I misunderstood, but this is how I read the meaning of your sentence:
In a roleplay game, if you play smart, your character should not face death, or there should be a really minimal chance of it.

Imho roleplay and chances (dices) are two very different things. What if you are playing a 6 Int guy? Do you play it smart?

Roleplay is just that: role-play.
Chances are another thing. And even in real life bad things happen, to smrt guys too.

 

[Umbran]

Its a deadly game.

But is it The Most Dangerous Game?

 

[Reynard]

Maybe I misunderstood, but this is how I read the meaning of your sentence:
In a roleplay game, if you play smart, your character should not face death, or there should be a really minimal chance of it.

Imho roleplay and chances (dices) are two very different things. What if you are playing a 6 Int guy? Do you play it smart?

Roleplay is just that: role-play.
Chances are another thing. And even in real life bad things happen, to smrt guys too.

I don't think "role-play" has such a hard definition. IMO -- and this coming from a guy who likes to do the whole funny voice play acting schtick -- rolep-playing can just as easily be done in the detatched third person as the immersed first person. And you can play the 6 Int character intelligently. Imagine Forest Gump is a PC. Dumb character played very smartly. It is generally unproductive to try and lay down absolutes about something as subjective as the definition of role-playing.

All that said, a string of PCs corpses is exactly the kind of motivator I think makes certain kinds of games exciting. For certain tables, the specter of doom looming over your every decision is the very definition of fun.

 

[Khoram]

It is a hard fight (as I read, I have to play it yet) but if the bugbear hits the rogue/wizard/cleric is becouse the fighter didn't play his role of tank. Everyone turns to the cleric when in need of ealing, everyone should turn to the warrior when the big bad boy shows up.

I'm not complaining about the encounter, my group made it through, barely, but I'm not sure it's the best introduction. Maybe I'm wrong.

However, I will disagree with you when you said "if the bugbear hits the rogue/wizard/cleric is becouse the fighter didn't play his role of tank". How exactly is that supposed to work if the fighter isn't in front and the group gets surprised or attacked by the bugbear? What if the bugbear rolls higher initiative than the fighter and, logic would dictate, attacks the easiest, nearest target - likely the unarmored wizard or lightly armored rogue who was scouting first up the chimney? Regardless, how exactly does a fighter "play his role of tank" in 5E D&D? Outside of choosing the protection role.

 

[TerraDave]

But is it The Most Dangerous Game?

Only when steam tunnels are involved.

 

[Tony Vargas]

However, I will disagree with you when you said "if the bugbear hits the rogue/wizard/cleric is becouse the fighter didn't play his role of tank". How exactly is that supposed to work if the fighter isn't in front and the group gets surprised or attacked by the bugbear?

Since the beginning, the fighter's role was front-line infantry, while the wizard was artillery. In the olden days there was a sort of unwritten rule that many, even most, monsters would gravitate towards attacking the PC in the front of the party, or the 'one who looked toughest' (the fighter, fighter-sub-class, or, later, barbarian). In CRPGs/MMOs it was hard-coded as 'aggro.' In 4e it was formalized by mechanics that supported the defender role. In 5e, there's one fighter option a little like that, but it's mostly back to counting on the DM to control the monsters in the way that makes the best fight, not the way that fights best (and can result in excessive character death). Players can help by sticking to a defensive, squishies in the middle, marching order, and pushing their fighters into any convenient choke-point, like a narrow corridor (or two abreast in a standard 10x10 corridor), doorway, or the like.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Your view on this is not as universal as you state it. Of course it is plenty of a role playing game if you can lose despite playing smart. Indeed, your statement runs against the overwhelming majority of role playing games throughout the history of role playing games. Who hasn't heard of "dying during character creation" for Traveler (obviously the extreme example of all extreme examples). Huge numbers of smart players died during the original Tomb of Horrors due to bad die rolls, does that mean they were "not playing much of a role-playing game"? Bottom line is that historically for the genre of games known as tabletop role playing games, dying because of bad luck despite smart play is more an axiom. It's a claim accepted prima facia. Not having the real risk of death despite smart play is really a much more modern concept, and not one embraced even by all modern games. In fact, I think I could list the number of games where "death by bad luck" is not a real factor on one hand.

A lot of players don't...For a lot of players...I think there are very few players who...

It's statements like this that make me harp on you constantly about you're lack of acknowledgement that you are a common outlier on this board for your perspective and experience of the game. And understand I have always said that you being an outlier is not itself bad - there is no judgement one way or another that you have an uncommon perspective and experience of the game. No, the judgement comes in you refusing to acknowledge that your perspective is different, that your experience is different, and therefore everything that's gone into honing your instincts about how others view the game is off.

Almost every poll we take here, you're in the incredibly small minority response. Almost every thread here when a huge overwhelming majority of posters is positive about X, you're negative about X (and sometimes the reverse). Almost every thread where people say their experience is Y, you disagree and say your experience is Z.

Again, that's not a bad thing. The bad thing is you not appreciating the ramifications of you being an outlier. It means you probably shouldn't be speaking for "a lot of other players" or for your view of what others think. Because everything you've built with your history of viewpoints says you are not closely in touch with what other people's views are or what they think about this game, given your very consistently differing perspective and experience with the game.

Bottom line, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot constantly proclaim your differing perspective and experience from the overwhelming majority, and also claim to speak for the majority based on your perspective and experience. It's got to be one or the other. And, given it's much harder to change ones perspective and experience, I would suggest it would probably be wisest to simply stop speaking to what you think the views of others are.