Random events with no purpose, premonition, logic, or reason are bad form regardless of whether or not they kill anybody. People will get bored and frustrated either way. Has nothing to do with rule set.
"You are walking down a hall. Whoops, you just triggered a trip wire. Okay, roll a save. Oh, you failed? DEAD."
That's naughty word. I never do that. That's what some people in this thread think a "challenge" is. IMO, that is me deciding that you should suddenly have a 35% chance of being done with your character.
If I have an instant death trap, it's a Disintegrate Glyph of Warding on an iron sarcophagus...in front of an altar to Iuz...submerged in a bath of blood...which is magically boiling...which can only be deconsecrated by getting the amulet off the powerful golem guarding it.
If you didn't cast Detect Magic on the thing and went home in an ashtray, that's on you.
Well, there are only two choices, aren't there? When the 14th-level module calls for rocs to attack the party, either I'm going to have them pick up their prey and dash them on the rocks, or I'm not going to. What I know about their character sheets will have absolutely zero effect on that decision...since it's logical for them to do that, they're going to. That's the point. I've heard people go as far as to say you shouldn't use flying enemies against all-melee party. My attitude is, flying enemies are out there, so don't be an all-melee party.
That is exactly what happened. I gave him two saving throws, too. One to grab onto the bridge, and another to grab onto a rock. Oh well!
We seem to be in agreement on all these. I don't think D&D culture advocates against these more than it ever has in the past. Some DMs are super light touches, some are rockfalls. But the culture overall is just moving more towards narrative cohesion rather than "can I kill this guy today" (basing that line off of the Knights of the Dinner Table for comedic effect.)
I’d like to chime in -above all, asking for advice. I have only DM’ed in 2e and 5e, and the lethality difference is conspicuous. I unintentionally killed 2e PCs often, whereas only one 5e PC has died in my games -others have not in spite of poor tactics. A problem of mine is that my games are quite heavy in terms of social interaction and intrigue, and so combat only takes place once during in-game time -if at all. Thus, the resources-based system is against PCs feeling threatened. I would not like to come up with exaggerated threats, so I’m at a loss. Once PCs feel invincible, the game is not as exciting. A cool thing is that my players are awesome and great roleplayers, so they don’t act like murder hobbos. Tips? Advice?
If you are heavy in intrigue, I'd say Poison, Magic, and shapechangers. All three are big, with various effects you can use.
For example, my DM had to specifically rewrite Dream because by RAW it is a near perfect assassination tool. If you can deny a long-rest by someone failing the save against Dream, then they do not gain any hp or spells back, and they take damage from the spell. One night of that will have your players scrambling to find the culprit.
Also, just homebrew stuff. One of the first things I thought about was a poison that is harmless, until you are exposed to a secondary poison that then has nasty effects. That doesn't exist in the game, but it easily could.
And Shapechangers, dang, a good shapechanger with some decent skills and stats can be a terrifying foe, because it causes so much paranoia amongst the party. Especially if you can convince a party member to act in place of the shapechanger for a quick scene, like they split up to investigate a party and the shapechanger sneaks over looking like a party member. They reveal a plan only for a few minutes later for the character to show up and them realize that they were lied to, or better yet, think the new person is the shapechanger.
It doesn't add combat challenge, but not knowing where your foe is or what they have planned is a big stress button for players. And if they are stressed they will feel more threatened even if in a straight fight they could take the individual out.
Allow me to enlighten then...
Tetrasodium has a good point here that shouldn't be dismissed, just because I think he would be better served with a different system. (the OSR is your friend dude...)
If 5e was moulded to the opinion surveys - who's opinion is more heavily weighted actually matters a lot in the overall game design.
Now separating the GM for player replys and giving them equal weight would be a zero guarantee that tetrasodium would like the system any better.
But the reason I think they should have been separated and given equal weight is quite simple: Without GM's no one can play!
5e would probably have been a bit different if GM's were given an equal voice to players in the survey.
And it would be to D&D's benefit when 6e rolls around to do so.
I see the point you are trying to make, but I don't think it was necessary for a pretty obvious reason.
Most DMs are far more active and responsive to surveys than players are.
For example, amongst all the tables, digital and real, that I play at, I am just about the only one that participated in the surveys and I'm generally the most knowledgeable about the UA articles and rulings. That puts me vs about... sixteen other people? Something like that anyways.
So, it is reasonable that the survey accounted for this weight (in statistical terms) when sifting through the data without any special effort needed on the end of us the public. I want to additionally note, there were professional survey testers involved in the process, easy to spot things like this were almost certainly addressed as they gathered and sifted through the data.
