D&D General Refresh my memory on the lethality of 3rd ed

[Andvari]

The confirmation roll reduced the chance of critical hits compared to 5E. Death rules are similar to AD&D 1E, as in you don't die until -10 HP.

However, critical hits do not exist in AD&D 1E. So in 1E, at low levels, even though HP counts are lower than in 3E, it's really unlikely you'll be reduced from positive HP to -10 in one hit.
In 3E, particularly with weapons that dead x3 damage on a crit, that can happen fairly easily. As others have mentioned, creatures like the basic 1/2 CR orc with its great axe could potentially instagib any low-level character in one hit. I personally just switched out their weapons.

In BECMI and 2E, you die at 0 HP, so those systems are quite deadly by RAW.

So I'd say 3E is deadlier than 1E, but less deadly than BECMI and 2E.

That being said, I don't recall actually playing BECMI without house-ruling in the -10 HP rules from AD&D 1E.

 

[Zardnaar]

The confirmation roll reduced the chance of critical hits compared to 5E. Death rules are similar to AD&D 1E, as in you don't die until -10 HP.

However, critical hits do not exist in AD&D 1E. So in 1E, at low levels, even though HP counts are lower than in 3E, it's really unlikely you'll be reduced from positive HP to -10 in one hit.
In 3E, particularly with weapons that dead x3 damage on a crit, that can happen fairly easily. As others have mentioned, creatures like the basic 1/2 CR orc with its great axe could potentially instagib any low-level character in one hit. I personally just switched out their weapons.

In BECMI and 2E, you die at 0 HP, so those systems are quite deadly by RAW.

So I'd say 3E is deadlier than 1E, but less deadly than BECMI and 2E.

That being said, I don't recall actually playing BECMI without house-ruling in the -10 HP rules from AD&D 1E.

I think 1E it was -3 at least in the DMG.

 

[James Gasik]

I think 1E it was -3 at least in the DMG.

This is what Gary actually wrote:

When any creature is brought to 0 hit points (optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is unconscious. In each of the next succeeding rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until 10 is reached and the creature dies. Such loss and death are caused from bleeding, shock, convulsions, non-respiration, and similar causes. It ceases immediately on any round a friendly creature administers aid to the unconscious one. Aid consists of binding wounds, starting respiration, administering a drought (spirits, healing potion, etc.), or otherwise doing whatever is necessary to restore life.

Any character brought to 0 (or fewer) hit points and then revived will remain in a coma for 1-6 turns. Thereafter, he or she must rest for a full week, minimum. He or she will be incapable of any activity other than that necessary to move slowly to a place of rest and eat and sleep when there. The character cannot attack, defend, cast spells, use magic devices, carry burdens, run, study, research, or do anything else. This is true even if cure spells and/or healing potions are given to him or her, although if a heal spell is bestowed the prohibition no longer applies.

If any creature reaches a state of 6 or greater negative points before being revived, this could indicate scarring or the loss of some member, if you so choose. For example, a character struck by a fireball and then treated when at -9 might have horrible scar tissue on exposed areas of flesh , hands, arms, neck, face.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

3rd edition was a game of system mastery. It was easy mode if you knew how to make super powerful characters, and deadly if you didn't.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think 1E it was -3 at least in the DMG.

If you took a hit that brought you below -3 you where dead. If your hp where between 0 and -3 (inclusive) you would bleed out 1 hp per round until you died at -10.

 

[Zardnaar]

If you took a hit that brought you below -3 you where dead. If your hp where between 0 and -3 (inclusive) you would bleed out 1 hp per round until you died at -10.

Derp it's been a while. As always I blame the French.

 

[Staffan]

Another thing to consider about the -1 to -10 rule in 3e is that as you get to higher levels, things do more damage. At 1st or 2nd level, sure, you could take an unlucky crit to go straight to -10 regardless of your hp. But if you're fighting, say, a cloud giant hitting for 4d6+18 the chances of you just bypassing that 10-point buffer between "fine" and "dead" goes up by a lot.

 

[Zardnaar]

Another thing to consider about the -1 to -10 rule in 3e is that as you get to higher levels, things do more damage. At 1st or 2nd level, sure, you could take an unlucky crit to go straight to -10 regardless of your hp. But if you're fighting, say, a cloud giant hitting for 4d6+18 the chances of you just bypassing that 10-point buffer between "fine" and "dead" goes up by a lot.

The 50 damage instant death thing was more likely in 3E as well.

Only dragon breath in AD&D would hit 50 damage generally.

 

[Enrahim2]

The critical hit really is a big deal. But I think the -10 limit can actually have killed more due to a false sense of security. There seem to be a buffer that can make people miscalculate. I have had 2 characters in games I have been running die due to actively stepping in the way (attracting aggro) of an enemy clearly telegraphed as very dangerous, while having low hp. They most likely anticipated going on the negative, but not quite -10. They would likely have been right if the roll wasn't a crit. In AD&D I think they wouldnt have taken such a chance without a significantly higher hp buffer (there was others in the party much more able to handle the damage)

3ed also seem to be more prone due to dying by specialisation. I one published adventure I ran, a relatively high level character seemed almost unbeatable due to 8nvesting everything in regeneration, grappling and other defencive tactics. However once the powerful regeneration was taken away due to a surprise effect at the end of a combat where he had done calculated tanking - he was incredibly vulnerable to a surprise spell.

Or we had the party yhat suffered an almost complete TPK due to attacking a dragon in open hills despite only one in the party really having anything reasonabely effective for ranged combat against fire immune enemies..

So i would say 3ed actually are more prone to "accidental" deaths than AD&D. What AD&D on the other hand has is more instadeath effects, in particular the "default" poison. It is also more acceptable at many tables to have the DM present really deadly challenges, as creating new characters are much "cheaper" than in 3ed. And I believe it is mainly this effect that give AD&D a reputation for being more deadly than 3ed. (Along with the lower hp buffer at low levels)

 

[Oofta]

I had a near-TPK (one PC fled) in 3.0 when it was first out. The PCs ran into some orcs and their base critical damage was [edit]quadruple triple[/edit] damage but it pretty much was their fault.

Other than that? Like most editions it was as deadly as the DM and group wanted it to be. A bit less "oops you're dead" than previous editions.