D&D General How Often Should a PC Die in D&D 5e?

[tetrasodium]

I don't think that this is quite right.

It was, "early levels are somewhat harder, but higher levels allow you to be stronger". The MU seems to have been deliberately designed to allow more skilled/clever players to show off - at low levels, you can still be very effective in play but you have to be clever in how you use your limited repertoire of spells. While at higher levels, if you are competent in spell load out and spell use, you will be the tactical and operational, and maybe even strategic, director of your group.

This sort of design makes more sense when players are maintaining a stable of PCs and/or henchmen - so that someone doesn't get stuck with playing "just" a fighter all the way through years of play. And obviously it may not be to everyone's taste.

But for a player who does enjoy exercising that skill and showing off their cleverness, playing a low level MU needn't suck.

Gotta agree with this. The squishy MU/Wizard took a lot of creativity from its player & a big chunk of that creativity tended to involve some flavor of teamwork (support, reciprocity, etc) in ways that led to group cohesion. By the time higher levels came around the healthy symbiotic dynamic was well fleshed out and operated smoothly even as spells could take a massive role in how a fight would impact the group

When 5e took the squishy & teamwork away by adding things like death saves always available cantrips and made spell selection less important by shifting from vancian to neovancian prep it stripped away all of those pressures fhealthy team building actions. As a result we have threads like this where posters others are asking how often PCs should die instead of what the group could to improve while others who can't manage a stable group are lecturing folks with long running stable groups about losing players.

 

[Oofta]

The creativity mostly lies in finding ways to be useful and effective without magic. Having some sort of skill or proficiency system, like some OSR games do, helps with this.

Back in ye' olden days when we didn't have a proficiency system, there were of course ways to be useful and effective no matter what the limitations of your character were. But it didn't really matter what class you were.

In any case, I'm not saying the new system is inherently better because it's a matter of preference. Just pointing out that in combat the old school wizards were really, really limited. Had a party of all wizards long ago in 2E who were all starry eyed because of how powerful they'd be someday. Ended in a TPK at 3rd(?) level because I just couldn't make encounters easy enough for them to actually survive.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Back in ye' olden days when we didn't have a proficiency system, there were of course ways to be useful and effective no matter what the limitations of your character were. But it didn't really matter what class you were.

In any case, I'm not saying the new system is inherently better because it's a matter of preference. Just pointing out that in combat the old school wizards were really, really limited. Had a party of all wizards long ago in 2E who were all starry eyed because of how powerful they'd be someday. Ended in a TPK at 3rd(?) level because I just couldn't make encounters easy enough for them to actually survive.

Old school characters were never intended to spend nearly as much time engaging in combat as modern characters are. In a lot of ways, combat was a failure state (an inevitable one occasionally, but a failure state nonetheless). Under that assumption, those one or two spells are supposed to be used carefully, for that special impact only magic can provide, and the rest of the time the magic-user does the best they can to be useful in combat or out, just like everyone else.

 

[pemerton]

Eh, running around throwing darts did kind of suck. Which happened if you go back far enough. Not a lot of creativity when you have 1 spell and you had to prepare specific spells.

I don't think I used the word "creativity" - I talked about skill and cleverness. Being the person who takes the lead on tactical decisions like when to use Sleep, or on a decision that can closer to the strategic, about when to use Charm, can be appealing to a certain sort of player playing within a particular sort of approach to the game.

 

[pemerton]

Old school characters were never intended to spend nearly as much time engaging in combat as modern characters are. In a lot of ways, combat was a failure state (an inevitable one occasionally, but a failure state nonetheless). Under that assumption, those one or two spells are supposed to be used carefully, for that special impact only magic can provide, and the rest of the time the magic-user dies the best they can to be useful in combat or out, just like everyone else.

I don't agree with the more OSR-ish view that combat was generally a failure state - I think it depends on who is being fought.

Ending up in combat after combat against wandering monsters is a failure state; but launching a deliberate assault on an occupant so as to defeat them and take their treasure is one reasonable way of approaching the game.

 

[Oofta]

People played old school games very differently than we did back in the day. Avoiding combat at all costs was not at all a universal approach to the game. For us it was all about kicking in doors and kicking ass because we were teenagers. At least it was when we initially started, after a while it developed more into story and whatnot. Wizards could be powerful but when you have to pre-prepare specific spells and only had a handful of spells at lower level you could quickly feel like a second rate combatant.

In any case, this is all just perspective and preference.

 

[CreamCloud0]

and the rest of the time the magic-user dies the best they can to be useful in combat or out, just like everyone else.

Is this a typo or commentary on old school editions of DnD? you decide!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't agree with the more OSR-ish view that combat was generally a failure state - I think it depends on who is being fought.

Ending up in combat after combat against wandering monsters is a failure state; but launching a deliberate assault on an occupant so as to defeat them and take their treasure is one reasonable way of approaching the game.

That's fair. I'm more thinking the goal is more often than not to circumvent the enemy so as to get at what they're guarded.

 

[Micah Sweet]

People played old school games very differently than we did back in the day. Avoiding combat at all costs was not at all a universal approach to the game. For us it was all about kicking in doors and kicking ass because we were teenagers. At least it was when we initially started, after a while it developed more into story and whatnot. Wizards could be powerful but when you have to pre-prepare specific spells and only had a handful of spells at lower level you could quickly feel like a second rate combatant.

In any case, this is all just perspective and preference.

You can play however you want, but that doesn't change the game's intended playstyle.

 

[Oofta]

You can play however you want, but that doesn't change the game's intended playstyle.

There was so much contradictory text in Gygax's writing I think you could say just about any style was what was "intended". People too cautious? Punish characters that listen at doors with earworms! Too aggressive? Punish them by killing all the characters!