I don't think cherrypicking a few monsters from one edition and comparing them to monsters in another edition actually proves anything. You need a far greater comparison than we could do here.
If a PC gets swatted by anything in 5e & drops to what they know is less total hp than the str/dex bonus alone on the thing about to drop them?... so what 3x(12d8+6) attacks vrs your 5 hp amounts to a total of 5 damage, healing word & soak the36d12+17 into the corn field or grt a free AoO bro.
Presumably solving the "not needing to attack a downed PC to kill them" issue would also solve this.
Yes the streamlining is nice, but the resulting toothless monsters, metagaming, & shift of 100% blame for PC deaths to the GM being a jerk is more problematic than many of the original complexities.
I don't think cherrypicking a few monsters from one edition and comparing them to monsters in another edition actually proves anything. You need a far greater comparison than we could do here.
Those creatures I listed didn't need to kill you to be scary, in fact they rarely did because they were so scary.
Barring monsters capable of causing instant death like a beholder or inappropriate challenge creatures capable of triggering death by massive damage beyond early levels, if those are cherry picked then start naming level appropriate monsters in 5e that are scary. Also all Incorporeal creatures were scary because they were hard to hit & ignored most forms of armor among other things. Trogs were scary because just being within 30 feet meant you were subject to a save or suck effect for each trog Anything that could give negative levels (much more than just wights) was scary because those were freaking dangerous, etc
as to your death at zero comment, that's a radical departure from 5e to say "well it's not an issue if you just remove death saves" is a ridiculous solution that doesn't change the problems at all because so much else is defanged.
D&D 5E plays a bit differently than older editions in that its leans heavily into the PC's being protagonists in a story rather than regular guys more than any other edition.
0E thru I don't know maybe 2E had a strong Alea iacta est , let the die fall where it may ethos but this has faded in line with gaming preferences over the years.
2E was woerd in that the rules had strong "sudden death" elements but there was a lot of social play in kits and the crazy amount of fluff that permeated the supplements
These days few few people would enjoy roll everything random even hit points , sudden death the player's skill counts more than the dice style of the old days so the 5E rules while still recognizable as D&D , reflect the more modern preferences in rules and in style
Frankly I think 5E is rather good and more fun to me than 3x though I don't get to play as much as I'd like. I don't know about running, never done it
at lower levels it's great, but there are so many streamlined & simplified systems that you lose the ability to have lateral improvements & any magic item/spell/level based improvement is silo'd. with no scary creatures & no realistic risk of death shy of "rocks fall" or the equivalent you wind up with PC's running around like Zues & Apollo thrashing nobodies like thor, loki, Jörmungandr, & fenrir with trivial ease in epic slogfests of attrition that were never in doubt.
at lower levels it's great, but there are so many streamlined & simplified systems that you lose the ability to have lateral improvements & any magic item/spell/level based improvement is silo'd. with no scary creatures & no realistic risk of death shy of "rocks fall" or the equivalent you wind up with PC's running around like Zues & Apollo thrashing nobodies like thor, loki, Jörmungandr, & fenrir with trivial ease in epic slogfests of attrition that were never in doubt.
Ah thanks. I haven't played past 5th or maybe 8th level so I appreciate the info. Its hard to get anyone to run high level games or stick around long enough to get to high level at least in my part. Its much like the D&D beyond poll where most advancement stops after 8th or so.
As an aside capped advancement is something B/X and some of the clones like 1E Castles and Crusades did really well. people don't play higher than that anyway so why not limit levels to what people might actually use.
With 5E is actually too bad, it seems like it ought to be good at high levels with its proficiency system and all but from my reading and what you've said, as far as i can tell its mostly HP and damage inflation rather than anything that interesting. yes there are a few mobility options but most battle zones are moderate in size
Seems kind of dull and this might be contributing to a lack of interest in higher levels.
Deadly Encounters from the 5e DMG tables live up to their name. It might take longer than prior editions, but a Deadly Encounter will at the least require a long rest and often times it will be time for the corpse handling gloves to be used.
Waves of assaulting Shadows (the monster) will wipe out low level parties, and severely hamper and possibly take down a higher level adventurer. An oldie from 1e, worked in 3e, works in 5e still.
Wraiths are very scary in 5e...Life Drain kills other classes and makes Barbarians cry in fear, like when a barbarian punches a steely jawed camel.
Except that 4E had Healing Surges, not Hit Dice, so each use of Second Wind typically restored one quarter of the character's hit points, regardless of level.
I don't buy the "It depends on the DM" argument. Let's look at the same situation in three different editions of the game. Your character is Gruff Strongjaw, a 3rd level human Fighter, and he was just bitten by a common viper.
In B/X Rules:
Gruff makes a save throw vs. poison, and for a 3rd level Fighter, the target is 12. If he fails the save throw (55% chance), he dies. So in the Basic/Expert rules, he has a 55% chance of immediate death.
In 3.5E Rules:
Gruff makes a Fortitude save. For a tiny viper the DC is 10, and for a 3rd level Fighter the Fort save is made at +3. If he fails the save throw (40% chance), he takes an additional 1d6 poison damage. Then he makes a second save throw, at the same DC. If he fails that save throw also (same 40% chance of failing), he takes another 1d6 poison damage.
So under the 3rd Edition rules, he has a 40% chance of taking +1d6 damage, followed by another 40% chance of another 1d6 damage.
In 5E Rules:
Gruff makes a Constitution save. For a tiny viper the DC is 10, and for a 3rd level Fighter the Con bonus is +2. If he fails the save throw (40% chance) he takes +2d4 poison damage. Otherwise, he takes +1d4 poison damage.
So with the 5th Edition rules, he takes +1d4 damage, and has a 40% chance of taking another +1d4 damage.
I mean, sure, the DM could just not use poisonous snakes in his campaign and decree that the adventure takes place in Ireland. He could also say that poison isn't poisonous, fire isn't hot, and death isn't possible. And that's true in any edition. So I get what folks are trying to say.
But if we're just examining the rules as-written and making comparisons? Some are definitely more challenging than others. Not just challenging in how deadly they are, but also challenging in their rules complexity and amount of math involved.
What's missing from the Gruff comparison is how many hit points ol' Gruff is likely to have at 3rd level in each of the more recent referenced editions.
Taking 2d4 or 2d6 damage is much more significant if Gruff only has 12 h.p. than it is if he's got 27.
You might also want to indicate Gruff's Con score, as it'll be relevant in every case but likely have different effects. As written I'd guess it's 10 or 11 i.e. +0 bonus in all editions.
That or 4E. I'll still go 4E because feats are optional and low level can be dangerous.
My PCs complained as they've had 6 encounters and I've used a adult blue dragon in 2 if them as she turns up round 3 or 4.
They're level 8, between them they gave access to around 16 level 3 and 4 spells, staff if healing, healer feat, inspiring leader, HD, plus potions and spells.
They're in a dragons lair, they each have a dragonslayer weapon and it takes a lot to grind them down.
The Dragon has been doing hit and fade with the breath weapon, second encounter she stuck around a extra round or two then retreated.
Is 5e the least challenging edition? It depends. If the DM is being generous with magic items, allows MC and feats, and the players optimize the hell out of their characters, exploiting every broken option (like healing spirit), then yes, 5e turns into a complete cakewalk.
