Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 7853012" data-attributes="member: 15700">I argued against your statement that I was using how often monsters appear in the books as the reason why 1e was more lethal.  Because that's not what I was arguing.  I already explained it's how often they appear in the game, not in the manual.  Those are two different things.So when I listed a whole bunch of monsters that appear frequently, that doesn't change my point.  The ghoul shows up once in the MM.  So does an intellect devourer.  But which of those shows up more often than the other in actual games?That list I provided was meant to show you how your entire argument falls apart because those are monsters that appear in the game all the time.  As I said, the only way your argument works if none of those monsters or traps or scenarios are ever encountered.  Which I shouldn't have to point out is extremely implausible in a typical campaign of D&D.And I think we're done here then.  If your argument is that the mechanics (getting multiple saves, less penalties for failing saves) and monster design (much less danger from special attacks) doesn't impact how lethal a typical game is, and insisting that no edition is typically played with more lethality than any other because it always comes down to the DM, and insist on ignoring how typical games are played, then I find that such a disingenuous position that I don't think it's possible to have an honest conversation.People tend to play games as a whole based on the rules of the game.  I could play 1e with giving every PC max HP regen after ever battle because that's  my choice as a DM, but that doesn't mean 1e is typically played with PCs getting max HP back after every encounter.  You're a smart person, you know this.  So I don't know why you insist on arguing.  Either way, I'm done.</blockquote>

Verification