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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 3845367" data-attributes="member: 3887">You'll admit that the current edition doesn't really support groups where there's a big difference in PC level, won't you? I've found 3.x all but requires a party to be close in level, unless you deviate significantly from the RAW and the standard adventure design assumptions. And the XP rules are specifically written so that PC's with less XP catch up.It's seems pretty clear to me that the system itself indicates that PC's should be near to/equal in level.Actually, my point was that framing this discussion in terms of D&D 'going soft', and implying there's some sort of 'hardcore' --what I termed USMC-style-- of play is silly. While its meaningful to talk about the relative difficulty of in-game challenges and the differences in preferred playstyles, the fact is campaign-based D&D is almost always --to borrow a phrase from videogaming-- played with 'unlimited continues'. There are no lasting negative consequences for dying/losing. You just 'respawn', as a different character if your parties under 9th level, and continue playing. And since the game is heavily weighted toward  play with relatively equal-leveled PC's, there can't be big material penalties associated w/character death.BTW, I don't think 'save-or-die' is 'teh suck', but it is bad design... I much prefer 'save-or-deleterious-effect', because those tend to lead to more interesting combats, where players are posed with an evolving sequence of challenges/setbacks they need to overcome, rather than simply 'okay', I need to roll high now or I sit out of the next few hours of the session.</blockquote>

Verification