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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 5935042" data-attributes="member: 1465">I didn't really write anything extraordinary with that sentence... It just means that when players overdo their characters' "great personality and background" (and by the way, writing the personality and background is not really roleplay, it's character design, but of course it's very much part of the game) maybe they should be reminded that if they're playing at 1st-level their personality and background is going to come from how they play (i.e. roleplay indeed) the upcoming adventures... If you want to play someone with the character and history of a king, perhaps you should consider higher level play.Lethality however is truly orthogonal. You can have a high-mortality game at low level which becomes low-mortality at high level (like some older editions) or viceversa. One way to adjust lethality is just to control the size and CR of encounters and their frequency per day, or tinker with treasure/wealth levels.What I'm trying to say (and I wonder how many times do I really need to rephrase that...) is that the only problem is at the "floor", the 1st level, where I think that there is absolutely no need for the designers to give too much stuff at once to the characters, except for non-design motivations (read: marketing). Giving too much stuff and too high survivability just takes away one valid gaming experience, that of what used to be the typical dire situation of a 1st-level D&D PC in earlier editions, with their combination of limited resources, low flexibility and higher risk of death. Why removing that option for the game? The opposite option would still be there after a couple of levels, and is generally easier to house rule than removing stuff (although not impossible, and the 5e draft it seems indeed easier than 3e to remove some stuff as a house rule).IYKWIMAITYD</blockquote>

Verification