D&D General Lethality, AD&D, and 5e: Looking Back at the Deadliest Edition

[Alzrius]

Did someone make such an argument?

Yes, as per what's written in the OP, where Snarf mentions "I saw a comment in my favorite meta-thread a week or so ago that, roughly boiled down, was, "Yo. AD&D wasn't that difficult. Heck, combat was much less lethal than later editions like 5e. AD&D was practically easy mode. By fourth level, you really couldn't die in AD&D.""

I suppose you can engage in some semantic finagling about "more deadly than any later edition" versus what Snarf wrote (which is itself a paraphrasing of the original post that he's referring to (or at least, I think that's it)), but the basic idea that 5E is deadlier than AD&D 1E/2E is very much there, and it's not true.

 

[MichaelSomething]

(though to be fair there are some borderline evil bastards out there that just like painful miserable games and think you get better stories that way. )

Stop trashing the Dark Souls series!

 

[Voadam]

Speaking of saves, 5e lets you attempt saves every turn. Not so in AD&D, and you didn't have concentration either.

AD&D had plenty of caster concentration aspects in spells. Lots of things break concentration but there are some things you can still do while concentrating.

"As soon as the cleric ceases concentration, the spiritual hammer is dispelled."

"The illusion lasts until struck by an opponent — unless the spell caster causes the illusion to react appropriately — or until the magic-user ceases concentration upon the spell (due to desire, moving, or successful attack which causes damage)."

"The elemental conjured up must be controlled by the magic-user, i.e. the spell caster must concentrate on the elemental doing his or her commands, or it will turn on the magic-user and attack. The elemental, however, will not cease a combat to do so, but it will avoid creatures when seeking its conjurer. If the magic-user is wounded or grappled, his or her concentration is broken. There is always a 5% chance that the elemental will turn on its conjurer regardless of concentration, and this check is made at the end of the second and each succeeding round."

"The spell caster can maintain the illusion with minimal concentration, i.e. he or she can move at half normal speed (but not cast other spells)."

"Unless combat is spell versus spell, many such attacks will happen near the end of a melee round. This is because the spell requires a relatively lengthy time to cast, generally longer as spell level increases, so high level spells may take over a full melee round to cast. Furthermore, if the spell caster is struck, grabbed, or magically attacked (and fails to make the requisite saving throw — explained later), the spell will be spoiled and fail. Spell combat includes cleric and magic-user, as well as monster-oriented spells. Curative spells are handled likewise."

"SPELL CASTING DURING MELEE
These functions are fully detailed in PLAYERS HANDBOOK. Their commencement is dictated by initiative determination as with other attack forms, but their culmination is subject to the stated casting time. Both commencement and/or completion can occur simultaneously with missile discharge, magical device attacks, and/or turning undead. Being struck by something during casting will spoil the spell.
Spell-casters will always insist that they are able to use their powers during combat melee. The DM must adjudicate the success of such use. Consider this: The somatic (movement) portions of a spell must be begun and completed without interruption in a clean, smooth motion. The spell as a whole must be continuous and uninterrupted from beginning to end. Once interrupted, for any reason whatsoever, the spell is spoiled and lost (just as if used). Spells cannot be cast while violently moving — such as running, dodging a blow, or even walking normally. They are interrupted by a successful hit — be it blow, missile, or appropriate spell (not saved against or saveable against).
Thus, casting a spell requires that a figure be relatively motionless and concentrating on the effort during the entire course of uninterrupted casting. For example, a magic-user casting a fireball must be in sight of the intended area of effect during the course of the spell (although an associate could be there to open a door intervening between caster and target area at an appropriate time — provided the timing was correct, of course). The caster cannot begin a spell, interrupt it just prior to completion, run to a different area, and then complete the spell; interruption instantly cancels it. Unless a spell has no somatic components, the caster cannot be crouching, let alone prone, during casting.
It can thus be understood that spell casting during a melee can be a tricky business, for a mere shove at any time can spoil the dweomer! Any spell can be attempted, but success is likely to be uncertain. Use the following procedure for spells cast during melee:
1. Spell casters must note what spell they intend to cast at the beginning of each round prior to any knowledge of which side has initiative.
2. Attacks directed at spell casters will come on that segment of the round shown on the opponent’s or on their own side’s initiative die, whichever is applicable. (If the spell caster’s side won the initiative with a roll of 5, the attack must come then, not on the opponent’s losing roll of 4 or less.) Thus, all such attacks will occur on the 1st-6th segments of the round.
3. Intelligent monsters able to recognize the danger of spells will direct attacks against spell casters if not engaged by other opponents so as to be prevented from so doing.
4. The spell caster cannot use his or her dexterity bonus to avoid being hit during spell casting; doing so interrupts the spell.
5. Any successful attack, or non-saved-against attack upon the spell caster interrupts the spell.
Because spell casting will be so difficult, most magic-users and clerics will opt to use magical devices whenever possible in melee, if they are wise."

 

[Sacrosanct]

AD&D had plenty of caster concentration aspects in spells. Lots of things break concentration but there are some things you can still do while concentrating.

"As soon as the cleric ceases concentration, the spiritual hammer is dispelled."

"The illusion lasts until struck by an opponent — unless the spell caster causes the illusion to react appropriately — or until the magic-user ceases concentration upon the spell (due to desire, moving, or successful attack which causes damage)."

"The elemental conjured up must be controlled by the magic-user, i.e. the spell caster must concentrate on the elemental doing his or her commands, or it will turn on the magic-user and attack. The elemental, however, will not cease a combat to do so, but it will avoid creatures when seeking its conjurer. If the magic-user is wounded or grappled, his or her concentration is broken. There is always a 5% chance that the elemental will turn on its conjurer regardless of concentration, and this check is made at the end of the second and each succeeding round."

"The spell caster can maintain the illusion with minimal concentration, i.e. he or she can move at half normal speed (but not cast other spells)."

"Unless combat is spell versus spell, many such attacks will happen near the end of a melee round. This is because the spell requires a relatively lengthy time to cast, generally longer as spell level increases, so high level spells may take over a full melee round to cast. Furthermore, if the spell caster is struck, grabbed, or magically attacked (and fails to make the requisite saving throw — explained later), the spell will be spoiled and fail. Spell combat includes cleric and magic-user, as well as monster-oriented spells. Curative spells are handled likewise."

"SPELL CASTING DURING MELEE
These functions are fully detailed in PLAYERS HANDBOOK. Their commencement is dictated by initiative determination as with other attack forms, but their culmination is subject to the stated casting time. Both commencement and/or completion can occur simultaneously with missile discharge, magical device attacks, and/or turning undead. Being struck by something during casting will spoil the spell.
Spell-casters will always insist that they are able to use their powers during combat melee. The DM must adjudicate the success of such use. Consider this: The somatic (movement) portions of a spell must be begun and completed without interruption in a clean, smooth motion. The spell as a whole must be continuous and uninterrupted from beginning to end. Once interrupted, for any reason whatsoever, the spell is spoiled and lost (just as if used). Spells cannot be cast while violently moving — such as running, dodging a blow, or even walking normally. They are interrupted by a successful hit — be it blow, missile, or appropriate spell (not saved against or saveable against).
Thus, casting a spell requires that a figure be relatively motionless and concentrating on the effort during the entire course of uninterrupted casting. For example, a magic-user casting a fireball must be in sight of the intended area of effect during the course of the spell (although an associate could be there to open a door intervening between caster and target area at an appropriate time — provided the timing was correct, of course). The caster cannot begin a spell, interrupt it just prior to completion, run to a different area, and then complete the spell; interruption instantly cancels it. Unless a spell has no somatic components, the caster cannot be crouching, let alone prone, during casting.
It can thus be understood that spell casting during a melee can be a tricky business, for a mere shove at any time can spoil the dweomer! Any spell can be attempted, but success is likely to be uncertain. Use the following procedure for spells cast during melee:
1. Spell casters must note what spell they intend to cast at the beginning of each round prior to any knowledge of which side has initiative.
2. Attacks directed at spell casters will come on that segment of the round shown on the opponent’s or on their own side’s initiative die, whichever is applicable. (If the spell caster’s side won the initiative with a roll of 5, the attack must come then, not on the opponent’s losing roll of 4 or less.) Thus, all such attacks will occur on the 1st-6th segments of the round.
3. Intelligent monsters able to recognize the danger of spells will direct attacks against spell casters if not engaged by other opponents so as to be prevented from so doing.
4. The spell caster cannot use his or her dexterity bonus to avoid being hit during spell casting; doing so interrupts the spell.
5. Any successful attack, or non-saved-against attack upon the spell caster interrupts the spell.
Because spell casting will be so difficult, most magic-users and clerics will opt to use magical devices whenever possible in melee, if they are wise."

I meant more from an official concentration mechanics. Ie., you can keep maintaining spells in 5e when you couldn't in AD&D because you were allowed a concentration check.

 

[Clint_L]

Whenever I see these arguments, it almost always comes down to this. Of course the game is as deadly as the DM wants, but that's ignoring the actual rules comparisons. So, IMO, when we have these discussions, we need to be willing to forget how we personally played, and look at the actual rules. I think that's the only way you're going to get even a hint of objectivity.

I disagree, because I think you have to acknowledge that the assumption in AD&D was that the game would be heavily modded and, as just about everyone in this thread points out, it was actually played as far less deadly than the rules suggest, even by Gygax himself. 5e is typically played much more closely to the rules.

Snarf points out in the OP that if you are just comparing rules, then AD&D is FAR more deadly than 5e. That's not even an interesting discussion - it's just plainly obvious (though Snarf does a very entertaining job of describing the many ways in which AD&D's rules were comically deadly by 5e's standards). So I think we have all acknowledged it and moved on to discuss what actually happened/happens, rather than what hypothetically could happen if people all played the rules exactly as written. Which is an inherently subjective discussion.

So the only objectivity you are going to get was already established by the OP, and everyone thus far has agreed: yup, AD&D had much deadlier rules.

 

[Clint_L]

Yes, as per what's written in the OP, where Snarf mentions "I saw a comment in my favorite meta-thread a week or so ago that, roughly boiled down, was, "Yo. AD&D wasn't that difficult. Heck, combat was much less lethal than later editions like 5e. AD&D was practically easy mode. By fourth level, you really couldn't die in AD&D.""

I suppose you can engage in some semantic finagling about "more deadly than any later edition" versus what Snarf wrote (which is itself a paraphrasing of the original post that he's referring to (or at least, I think that's it)), but the basic idea that 5E is deadlier than AD&D 1E/2E is very much there, and it's not true.

Did someone in this discussion make such an argument? We can't really have a discussion with "a comment in my favourite meta-thread a week or so ago."

 

[Clint_L]

I think one thing that 5e had done very successfully is capture the spirit of how AD&D was actually played, including when it comes to character death. As I think most of us have agreed, AD&D as played was usually far less lethal than you might think just by looking at the rules. Of course it varied by table preference, then as now, but I played for years and IME character death was not a lot more common than it is now. I think WotC has been at considerable pains to try build the rules that will more accurately reflect the expected lethality of a Dungeons and Dragons game, which is is extremely low - the game is intended to produced ongoing campaigns and players are expected and encouraged to grow attached to their characters. So it is never going to have a body count like my personal favourite TTRPG, Dread. But Dread is explicitly designed for one-shots.

Another thing that keeps being brought up is low HP in AD&D. Again, as actually played these were not as low as you might think, particularly in front-line classes. There was a lot of variance, but I never met anyone who used the straight "roll 3 dice six times and there's your attributes" method of character generation. So in actuality, most characters had pretty good stats, especially in their prime attributes. If you played a fighter, you likely had a constitution bonus to HP, and most folks then as now awarded max HP at level 1. On top of that, monster damage (and HP) were also lower. So an orc, for example, had one hit dice (4.5 HP on average), an AC of 6, and did 1d8 damage - it would be routine to one-shot them even at level 1. By the mid-80s, when we had added UA rules, it was normal for a level 1 fighter with weapon specialization to easily and safely be able to take on a half dozen orc-level opponents.

As Snarf points out, most of the extra lethality (in theory) came from a great many insta-gibb effects written into the game, not from combat. But one thing we haven't touched on as much is the prevalence of having hirelings and, at higher levels, followers with the adventuring party, and these were typically used as cannon fodder, opening doors and the like. AD&D was definitely lethal for those guys! There were also various conventions like the ubiquitous (and ridiculous) 10' pole that every party carried. Most of that is gone from 5e, unless you count familiars and various summoned companions which are often used to serve a similar function.

 

[Alzrius]

Did someone in this discussion make such an argument? We can't really have a discussion with "a comment in my favourite meta-thread a week or so ago."

"Such an argument" (i.e. that D&D 5E is deadlier than AD&D 1E/2E) is the impetus around which the OP is framed, which is what kicked off this entire discussion. It's entirely appropriate, within the context of this thread, for someone to respond to (and disagree with) that idea.

So if you ask "did someone make such an argument?" the answer is a resounding yes; pointing out that they didn't do so in this thread is rather pointless. The entire reason for this thread is to respond to an argument that itself wasn't made in this discussion.

 

[MichaelSomething]

If AD&D is much more deadly then what people wanted, why was it written that way?

Isn't it a good thing the game reflects how people want to play it?

 

[bloodtide]

Again, this does not track my personal experience of AD&D. Mostly, we wanted to kill everything and get its treasure, because that's where the experience was. It was seldom possible to get that loot without a fight - look at a typical AD&D module.

Though, by the numbers, a lot of encounters were not worth it for the XP. A whole large group of orcs would be little xp and little treasure..unless you were raiding their lair. A more clever group saved combat for big targets. A typical "old cave" with a "giant spider" often had more treasue then the whole goblin tribe. And yes, the encounter was presented as a robotic "kill the spider get the loot" encounter. But clever players got around that. I was more often, and well worth it, to distract and go around the giant spider then to fight it. And this had a level of player teamwork often unseen in later editions. The wizard would be the bait to lure the spider out, the fighter stood ready to close a door blocking the spider and the thief dashed into the lair to find the loot.

Say what? I use them regularly. I don't see how edition has anything to do with choosing to use those sorts of scenarios. They are pretty standard in every edition, in my experience.

Maybe we read different editions? Does 5E have some harsh roll or die encounters? Or even any "if your character gets knocked off the cliff, they die" type encounters?

I will agree that D&D is less lethal than AD&D (hello healing word), though ultimately this comes down to the DM in any edition, but your characterization of 5e is pretty hyperbolic. Players can and do feel various types of loss, in many ways more so than AD&D because there is greater emphasis on story, and characters do die.

Sure players in 5E can feel bad as their character lost a couple hit points. And sure they can feel bad on the rare times when they fail some type of story mission...."darn we did not save Duke Whateverhisnamewas....but do we get enough xp to go up a level?"

Room full of acid, characters trying to get across via precarious perches, and an ooze trying to drag them in. 5e.

On paper AD&D looked positively lethal by today's standards, but in practice it really depended on the group,

This is a big part of the point.

On paper, in the books and modules, AD&D was full of character death. 5E on the other hand, is full of fun encounters for a balanced group to over come. You can see a huge difference.

And far too many DMs, at least half, copy the 'spirit' of the written rules. So the 5E DM that only sees endless 'fun encounters', will just make more 'fun encounters'....and never once would they consider making a "deadly encounter', or even more so an "unfair encounter".

The point that I made was that AD&D COMBAT, not the edition as a whole, is not very lethal at all after about 3rd or 4th level. The baddies just didn't do enough damage, nor did they have any to-hit bonuses. Which meant they weren't hitting often and when they did, they didn't really do that much damage.

In AD&D a character took damage all the time...not just pure combat. That is a very different game from 5E. Nearly all encounters, had a chance of hurting a PC and taking away hit points. Environtmental hazads were common, from just slipping down a rocky hillside to say the extreme heat given off walking near some lava. Plus, of course, traps were common. A simple spear or pit trap only did a couple points of damage...but after ten such traps they add up. And this also goes back to negative effects. The mushroom spores fill your characters lungs, and do a simple 1d6 damage an hour, save for half. Still, after a couple hours, that damage adds up.