Different strokes, but silver weapons were in the fighters hand and thief's quiver by third level and +1 weapon (even a lowly dagger) was common enough someone has one by 4th or 5th. Then again, we also knew you needed +X weapons to fight those things so we didn't tend to toss them at unprepared characters until they got a few on their belts...
My most vivid memories of wights in 1st edition use one as a boss in a level 1-3 dungeon, with a single silver dagger to fight it with. I think I saw that a couple of times.
What difference does it make what word is used to label it in a discussion about the impact of having/,not having those monsters equipped with abilities that cause it? That sounds like an irrelivant distinction or a total confirmation demonstrating the problem 5e created. Either you found the still credible monsters like the ghoul Ghast eight wraith rust monster beholder & do on $WORD:
SPEAK TO THE HAND! LEEEEREROOOOYYYYYYY JEEEEENNNNKKKIIIINNNNNNSSSS". Such a 5e style depowering of monsters is just servicing a player who is squarely in the bullseye for the "find better players" mantra.
All the difference in the world. the thread title is about HORROR. You created another thread to complain about 5.5 not being as deadly as you would like.
No, you are addressing that criticism to the wrong poster. the post I quoted was an entirely subjective personal distinction refuting a partially quoted post about how previously scary monsters had an impact on play.
You are talking about the sort of emotion that you feel when you are trying to defeat a difficult boss in a video game. It's frustrating if you keep dying and have to start again from the beginning, it's exciting if you win. And people have different thresholds for frustrating.
That's a pretty shark but I'm not interested in jumping that ramp over it in service of the pointless "frustrating" point.
You need to go back multiple editions to 1989 when 2e came out for wights & such that needed silver/+1 weapons to hurt. Unless you are trying to claim that the 2014/2024 5e wights & such depowered the still effective 3.x version as a reaction to 2e I'm not sure why this hill is coming up when the "don't have silvered weapon" hurdle was already removed without removing the monster's functional role like 5e did.
What difference does it make what word is used to label it in a discussion about the impact of having/,not having those monsters equipped with abilities that cause it? That sounds like an irrelivant distinction or a total confirmation demonstrating the problem 5e created. Either you found the still credible monsters like the ghoul Ghast eight wraith rust monster beholder & do on $WORD:
What matters is the impact on play and the GM's ability to use those monsters in an adventure to impact player behavior.
- and changed how players played their PC
- In the first case the "$WORD" choice used to label it is irrelevant because the gm was able to choose monsters that had an effect on play.
- And they didn't care and played exactly the same totally unconcerned about the risk regardless of how much the gm tried to telegraph it
- In the second... the fact that a player felt $WORD as a result of the GM's chioce of monsters & efforts to telegraph risk was an entirely irrelevant thing with zero impact on play & there was no reason for monster design to be depowered to remove consequence & risk from the GM's toolbox in service of playerswith such an extreme lack of concern that no GMis incapable of conveying anything to a player who refuses to acknowledge any attempt to telegraph risk other than "
(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
