D&D 5E Finding 5th edition too "safe".

[Ancalagon]

I would go a very different route, because IMHO the abundance of healing is not the problem.

It's not so much how easy it is to bounce back to full health, but rather how really dangerous it is when your health is low, and it isn't very dangerous. IMO if you slow down healing, all you get is that the PCs will try to withdraw and rest more often. The main result is that you'll get less encounters per day, but lethality won't increase much.

So then you would need to force more encounters, or use bigger monsters, but this you can do already, without the need to house rule HP/HD/healing.

More and bigger monsters certainly helps to push the PCs towards the "danger window", but compared to older edition IMO that window is not as dangerous. The main reasons are (1) death saves, (2) options to stabilize, (3) revivify. In addition, the whole 5e is remarkably (4) lacking save-or-die spells, and even (5) save-or-suck spells often offer repeated saves every round. Finally there are (6) no "death spiral" effects such as level drain and ability score damage.

So if I wanted an overall more lethal 5e, I would consider tinkering with those, maybe change just 1-2 of them at a time and see how it works.

If you re-read my post you will note that I proposed (2) and (3) on top of changing natural healing.

 

[Azzy]

I would go a very different route, because IMHO the abundance of healing is not the problem.

It's not so much how easy it is to bounce back to full health, but rather how really dangerous it is when your health is low, and it isn't very dangerous. IMO if you slow down healing, all you get is that the PCs will try to withdraw and rest more often. The main result is that you'll get less encounters per day, but lethality won't increase much.

So then you would need to force more encounters, or use bigger monsters, but this you can do already, without the need to house rule HP/HD/healing.

More and bigger monsters certainly helps to push the PCs towards the "danger window", but compared to older edition IMO that window is not as dangerous. The main reasons are (1) death saves, (2) options to stabilize, (3) revivify. In addition, the whole 5e is remarkably (4) lacking save-or-die spells, and even (5) save-or-suck spells often offer repeated saves every round. Finally there are (6) no "death spiral" effects such as level drain and ability score damage.

Actually, death saves aren't part of the issue. Only BXCMI & 2e are more lethal (when you hit 0, you're dead). But 1e, with death occurring at -10 and no "bleeding out" rules is more forgivable to those brought down to 0 hp. Also, 5e's death saves are more likely to kill you than 3e's "bleeding out" rules.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Nothing. The list was suggestions to make 5e run more like 2e. Fighters fall behind as the campaign goes on. That's how 2e works. 2e has its own version of balance by making some classes better at early levels and some classes better at higher levels. It's not what I prefer, but if one is looking to make 5e run more like 2e, that's part of it.

Was this meant in a humorous way? Because the OP wasn't asking how to make 5e more like 2e in every way (progression, balance, etc.), he was just asking how to make 5e more lethal, like older editions.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

IMHO the issue is with encounter balancing. People seem to think that using CR will create balance across all encounter levels. No, it won't. Ratchet your game up and you will be damn glad of the rules as they stand.

 

[RotGrub]

The designers of 5e decided not to provide alternative options. There are no options to play without HD healing because it would likely require an increase in the number of healing spells that clerics get. Second Wind is not optional and yet the play test had a version that used temp hit points.

2e is deigned around high AC (missing more) and PCs have less hit points. Of course, rounds can pass very quickly without opponents even being hit and that can make the game very intense. More people stand up on edge at my table during 2e saving throws and attack rolls than any other edition. Watching your fate roll across the table is just not something that happens anymore.

No longer is the "saving throw" a roll to avoid certain death as it was defined in 2e.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Here are the AD&D saving throws for 9th level PCs:

       Poison, Paralysation, Death    Petrfication, Polymorph        R/S/W       Breath Weapon    Spells/Magic
Cleric          7                             10                      11              13                  12
Fighter         8                             9                       10              9                   11
MU              13                            11                      9               13                  10
Thief           11                            10                      10              14                  11

So for most 9th level PCs, once rings/cloaks of protection, periapts of proof against poison and the like are factored in, the chance of success on a save vs death or poison will often be quite a bit better than 50/50.

Saves against breath weapon and AoE spells will often be being buffed by armour or DEX; and other saves may be buffed by WIS.

I think you're slightly exaggerating the difficulty of making saves in high level AD&D.

And I think you're way underestimating it. Remember, I've been playing AD&D continuous from 1981 to 2012, so it's not like it's an edition I haven't played in decades. For example, only a small portion of Spells/Magic saves is impacted by Wisdom. Your other big assumption flaw is assuming every PC will have all of these benefits. For example, rings and cloaks of protection typically went to the squishy PCs, like MUs and thieves, who as you can see, have a much worse than 50% chance of instantly dying at 9th level. Assuming they had those items, that brings them down to the 50% range like I was generalizing. That's assuming they had them, because treasure is randomly rolled in AD&D. And the only PCs usually to have a WIS bonus were clerics/druids and that was pretty much it (and unlike recent editions, a +2 bonus [bringing that save to a 50%] was pretty average for even clerics). With the exception of the wonky cavalier, you didn't increase your stats in AD&D like 3e, 4e, or 5e. What you rolled was what you ...ahem...rolled with for the entire career.

So yeah, between roughly a 50% chance of dying instantly to any number of effects, and low HP totals* compared to moderns versions + high damage monsters/spells, I am perfectly comfortable in saying Tony is very mistaken when he says things like AD&D "quickly grew out of lethality at higher levels".

*A 9th level MU is going to have an average of 23 max hp. A thief? 32. A cleric? 41. Maybe 50 if you're lucky enough to also have a CON bonus. And the tank of the group, the fighter? Even with a 16 CON it's still 68. And anything above 9th level you stop rolling dice and adding con, but just add a straight small value (+1, +2, +3 respectively).

 

[RotGrub]

Actually, death saves aren't part of the issue. Only BXCMI & 2e are more lethal (when you hit 0, you're dead). But 1e, with death occurring at -10 and no "bleeding out" rules is more forgivable to those brought down to 0 hp. Also, 5e's death saves are more likely to kill you than 3e's "bleeding out" rules.

the -10 hp bleedout was also an optional 2e rule. Of course, recovery was nasty in 2e because you lost all your memorized spells.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[RotGrub]

And I think you're way underestimating it. Remember, I've been playing AD&D continuous from 1981 to 2012, so it's not like it's an edition I haven't played in decades. For example, only a small portion of Spells/Magic saves is impacted by Wisdom. Your other big assumption flaw is assuming every PC will have all of these benefits. For example, rings and cloaks of protection typically went to the squishy PCs, like MUs and thieves, who as you can see, have a much worse than 50% chance of instantly dying at 9th level. Assuming they had those items, that brings them down to the 50% range like I was generalizing. That's assuming they had them, because treasure is randomly rolled in AD&D. And the only PCs usually to have a WIS bonus were clerics/druids and that was pretty much it (and unlike recent editions, a +2 bonus [bringing that save to a 50%] was pretty average for even clerics). With the exception of the wonky cavalier, you didn't increase your stats in AD&D like 3e, 4e, or 5e. What you rolled was what you ...ahem...rolled with for the entire career.

So yeah, between roughly a 50% chance of dying instantly to any number of effects, and low HP totals* compared to moderns versions + high damage monsters/spells, I am perfectly comfortable in saying Tony is very mistaken when he says things like AD&D "quickly grew out of lethality at higher levels".

*A 9th level MU is going to have an average of 23 max hp. A thief? 32. A cleric? 41. Maybe 50 if you're lucky enough to also have a CON bonus. And the tank of the group, the fighter? Even with a 16 CON it's still 68. And anything above 9th level you stop rolling dice and adding con, but just add a straight small value (+1, +2, +3 respectively).

I'm reminded that demi-humans had great save bonuses in 2e.

As I stated previously, Saving throws in AD&D and 2e served a different purpose. They were a mercy roll. You rolled them to avoid certain death. Since 3e they became more like resistances and players felt more entitled.

I think avoiding certain death 50% of the time is a good thing.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Actually, death saves aren't part of the issue. Only BXCMI & 2e are more lethal (when you hit 0, you're dead). But 1e, with death occurring at -10 and no "bleeding out" rules is more forgivable to those brought down to 0 hp. Also, 5e's death saves are more likely to kill you than 3e's "bleeding out" rules.

AD&D did have bleeding out rules in 1e. Once you went unconscious, you lost 1 hp per round. And even if you got aid, you were still in a coma afterward and had to rest a long time. If you hit -6 hp before being aided, you could have lost a limb.