D&D 5E Finding 5th edition too "safe".

[Corpsetaker]

In another thread I discussed about our group wanting to switch back to 2nd edition and one of the reasons that came up for all of us was that we feel 5th edition is just a bit too safe.

Now what I mean by this is the actual danger that the old edition used to give us. I really miss the lethality of that edition. I just feel like 5th edition, while fun, is just a bit too safe with the amount of hit points and HD healing. One thing I can do is become really attached to my characters and be very upset if they die but be okay with it. It's the fact that I could lose this character anytime because of either bad decisions or just plain bad luck with the dice. This enhances the play aspect for myself and my group and it's something I feel 5th edition lacks.

I can see why people would not like the game to be that lethal because some people become really attached to characters and they just don't want to see them die unless they jump through several hurdles to the point where the characters death was just meant to be. Personally I'm not even one who has to have his character's death be dramatic or mean something. I accept the fact that things happen and this gives a bit of realism for me and my group.

Now I will say that 5th edition feels less safe than 4th edition but just not enough to give us that sense of danger and loss.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

5th edition is "safe" because it is much easier for a group that wants a more lethal game to scale up the threat level of the game to reach a satisfying result than it is for a group that wants a less lethal game to scale down the threat level of a game to reach a satisfying result.

Sure, 5th edition doesn't quite work to deliver on exactly the same feeling of lethality as 2nd editon - the most attacks miss, but if one hits something probably died style is entirely opposed by the basic design principles of 5th edition - but it can be used to deliver similarly lethal experiences after adjusting to expect lethality to match up in terms of character deaths/adventure rather than in terms of character deaths/die roll.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You spend an awful lot of time on an edition that you do nothing but complain about. My old boss used to say, "At some point, fish or cut bait."

 

[jgsugden]

I just addressed this here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...lass-balance&p=6862331&viewfull=1#post6862331

Quick summary of my post and that thread: It isn't *too safe* and death is not the only way to challenge a party.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In another thread I discussed about our group wanting to switch back to 2nd edition and one of the reasons that came up for all of us was that we feel 5th edition is just a bit too safe.

Now what I mean by this is the actual danger that the old edition used to give us. I really miss the lethality of that edition. I just feel like 5th edition, while fun, is just a bit too safe with the amount of hit points and HD healing.

Have you tried playing at 1st level?

My pet conspiracy theory is that they made 1st level so randomly (almost hilariously, really) lethal, to fake you out, so you'd think 'wow 5e is deadly,' and not notice how easy it got after a few levels.

Seriously, though, it's about the pattern I found in AD&D, also. Low level, sure, it's deadly, but you quickly grow out of that. The monsters never get that badass. Once you get out the other end of the 'sweet spot' it's as 'too easy' as 5e could ever claim to be. Maybe 5e gets too easy too soon? You could try increasing the exp to level.

Now, if you want character deaths just all the time at any level, 3.5 can totally do that for you...
... really, any edition can, there's no limit to what a killer DM can throw at his party.

Now I will say that 5th edition feels less safe than 4th edition but just not enough to give us that sense of danger and loss.

At 1st level, definitely, though 4e never felt as 'easy mode' as 5e quickly gets. 4e tried to expand the 'sweet spot' and it did; 5e tried to re-capture classic feel, and, IMHO, it certainly did. You clearly disagree, and think the classic game was deadlier, longer.

 

[jodyjohnson]

The default game isn't for everyone. It doesn't suit me perfectly.

Good thing we're not supposed to get hung up on playing the default game.

 

[Ancalagon]

Reduce the amount of healing Hit dice you can have/spend, reduce how fast you get them back, remove overnight full HP healing, remove revivify and perhaps healing spells that have a range... that should help.

 

[Daern]

All you have to house-rule remove is Death Saves, and Hit Dice healing during rests. That makes it plenty lethal.

 

[Raith5]

At 1st level, definitely, though 4e never felt as 'easy mode' as 5e quickly gets. 4e tried to expand the 'sweet spot' and it did; 5e tried to re-capture classic feel, and, IMHO, it certainly did. You clearly disagree, and think the classic game was deadlier, longer.

Agree. 4e was tricky at higher levels because fights went on for so many rounds (and monsters had interrupts and reactions) which made for so many chances for things to go horribly wrong (despite the buckets of healing from the PCs). 5e fights are so short - most of ours are done within 3 rounds and at low levels somebody in our party gets knocked down. This makes it brutal and captures the feel of pre 3e - but only at low levels.

Aside from cutting down the hit dice as others have suggested, I would restrict the 3rd level spell Revivify because it does undermine lethality, or just ramp up the monsters and drawn those fights out.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Eh. Eliminate long rest HP restore and change HD recovered to 1/day of rest. If you want, you can set the maximum HD pool to 1, change Fighter's Second Wind to temp HP or to a long rest ability, set the Paladin's healing pool to 2/level, eliminate potions of healing, and remove Holy Word and Revivify.

I consider all of these vastly preferable to THAC0 and 1e/2e multiclassing.