D&D General How Often Should a PC Die in D&D 5e?

[prabe]

I think the issue here is: how far beyond the game's defaults do you need to go to challenge the PCs at a potentially lethal level?

That's a reasonable question, but in the same way that you can run 1e without much in the way of PC deaths (I was in three year-long 1e AD&D campaigns in the mid-1980s in which no PCs died, and these were not Hickman Revulsion adventures) you can run 5e to be extraordinarily lethal. The defaults don't matter so much as the range, I think.

EDIT: All those are the general "you," to be clear.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I grasp it just fine. When I have to throw extra powerful monsters or powerful monsters at much lower levels to challenge them, it's an easier game. The 5e balance around resource attrition and high hit points makes it harder to threaten PC lives with encounters that would have been a challenge in earlier editions.

This is pretty easy to test. Run the same level, same class PCs against the same group of monsters in different editions and see what happens.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's definitely a way to judge easier/harder ... But IME it's just as easy to make an encounter that will splatterfy the party, sometimes unintentionally. The fact that, say, a Balor is barely a speedbump for a Tier 3 party doesn't mean it's harder to kill them, it just means you can't do it with one Balor.

(My point being what you're talking about isn't the only way to judge this, not that it's a bad way.)

It is the most obvious and easy to understand way, however, IMO.

 

[prabe]

This is pretty easy to test. Run the same level, same class PCs against the same group of monsters in different editions and see what happens.

That's probably not as fair as it seems on the surface. The same monsters are often specifically different power levels in different editions. Running a bunch of, say, 3rd-level PCs against a number of wights will be very different between 1e and 5e, in part because wights are not intended to be as powerful in 5e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's a reasonable question, but in the same way that you can run 1e without much in the way of PC deaths (I was in three year-long 1e AD&D campaigns in the mid-1980s in which no PCs died, and these were not Hickman Revulsion adventures) you can run 5e to be extraordinarily lethal. The defaults don't matter so much as the range, I think.

For you and me, sure. For someone picking up any corebook for any edition...those defaults are going to matter.

 

[prabe]

It is the most obvious and easy to understand way, however, IMO.

Inside every question is a simple and obvious answer just waiting to come out.

I'm not snarking on you, honest (I think you've seen me snark, and I think you can tell the difference); I'm just gesturing at the fact that "obvious and easy to understand" is often a trap.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's probably not as fair as it seems on the surface. The same monsters are often specifically different power levels in different editions. Running a bunch of, say, 3rd-level PCs against a number of wights will be very different between 1e and 5e, in part because wights are not intended to be as powerful in 5e.

Precisely. That is enough for me to conclude that the game is less dangerous (than I want it to be, at least) than in previous editions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Inside every question is a simple and obvious answer just waiting to come out.

I'm not snarking on you, honest (I think you've seen me snark, and I think you can tell the difference); I'm just gesturing at the fact that "obvious and easy to understand" is often a trap.

No worries.

It can be, but I'm comfortable with where I ended up in this case.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And you're comfortable with the result that the chance of such defeats would be drastically curtailed, often to the point of being extremely unlikely, or (functionally) impossible?

If by "such defeats" you mean quick and random deaths which the player had no chance to take an action to avoid, yes.

 

[prabe]

Precisely. That is enough for me to conclude that the game is less dangerous (than I want it to be, at least) than in previous editions.

You obviously get to decide what's enough for you, but I think if I were trying to make this determination this way, I'd probably want to really look at how potent the monsters I was using were supposed to be in the different editions.

(I think the point is plausibly provable this way, I just think it'd need more care. Hell, even getting the difference in what Challenge Rating is telling you between 3d and 5e seems at least vaguely important, here.)