Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mephistopheles" data-source="post: 4708428" data-attributes="member: 4460">High lethality situations with things like level drain and save or die effects are a legacy of older editions of D&amp;D. Determining when to avoid certain fights and how to do so was part of the knack of adventuring because combat was often brutal. A lot of downtime between adventures was commonly assumed and to some extent made necessary by the rules. Survivability increased at higher levels but there were plenty of characters who wouldn't survive to see it. These factors were mitigated somewhat by players having more than one character each as well as the involvement of henchmen and other retainers and brisk combats.The current model with 4E D&amp;D tends towards more survivability right off the mark. It's still possible for characters to be killed but it's not as likely or as immediate as before. Combat is as much a set piece of the system as it is something to be survived and as such seems to be something the designers intend the characters to shine through rather than avoid. Required downtime is minimal. Characters are probably going to survive to higher levels. This makes some sense as the focus is now squarely on one character per player without a retinue of henchmen and other servants; the characters are Heroes.I think there is fun to be had with both styles of game but you're not likely to have fun with one if you're expecting it to be the other.(As a bit of an aside, 3E strikes me as being the middle child of the progression in some ways. It still had the lethality of older editions and even became increasingly lethal as level increased. It also had the focus of one character per player without the auxiliaries. I also enjoy it but I find the combination of these factors makes it less fun to sustain above level ten or so.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mephistopheles, post: 4708428, member: 4460"] High lethality situations with things like level drain and save or die effects are a legacy of older editions of D&D. Determining when to avoid certain fights and how to do so was part of the knack of adventuring because combat was often brutal. A lot of downtime between adventures was commonly assumed and to some extent made necessary by the rules. Survivability increased at higher levels but there were plenty of characters who wouldn't survive to see it. These factors were mitigated somewhat by players having more than one character each as well as the involvement of henchmen and other retainers and brisk combats. The current model with 4E D&D tends towards more survivability right off the mark. It's still possible for characters to be killed but it's not as likely or as immediate as before. Combat is as much a set piece of the system as it is something to be survived and as such seems to be something the designers intend the characters to shine through rather than avoid. Required downtime is minimal. Characters are probably going to survive to higher levels. This makes some sense as the focus is now squarely on one character per player without a retinue of henchmen and other servants; the characters are Heroes. I think there is fun to be had with both styles of game but you're not likely to have fun with one if you're expecting it to be the other. (As a bit of an aside, 3E strikes me as being the middle child of the progression in some ways. It still had the lethality of older editions and even became increasingly lethal as level increased. It also had the focus of one character per player without the auxiliaries. I also enjoy it but I find the combination of these factors makes it less fun to sustain above level ten or so.) [/QUOTE]

Verification