D&D General Refresh my memory on the lethality of 3rd ed

[Andvari]

The confirmation roll reduced the chance of critical hits compared to 5E. Death rules are similar to AD&D 1E, as in you don't die until -10 HP.

However, critical hits do not exist in AD&D 1E. So in 1E, at low levels, even though HP counts are lower than in 3E, it's really unlikely you'll be reduced from positive HP to -10 in one hit.
In 3E, particularly with weapons that dead x3 damage on a crit, that can happen fairly easily. As others have mentioned, creatures like the basic 1/2 CR orc with its great axe could potentially instagib any low-level character in one hit. I personally just switched out their weapons.

In BECMI and 2E, you die at 0 HP, so those systems are quite deadly by RAW.

So I'd say 3E is deadlier than 1E, but less deadly than BECMI and 2E.

That being said, I don't recall actually playing BECMI without house-ruling in the -10 HP rules from AD&D 1E.

 

[Zardnaar]

The confirmation roll reduced the chance of critical hits compared to 5E. Death rules are similar to AD&D 1E, as in you don't die until -10 HP.

However, critical hits do not exist in AD&D 1E. So in 1E, at low levels, even though HP counts are lower than in 3E, it's really unlikely you'll be reduced from positive HP to -10 in one hit.
In 3E, particularly with weapons that dead x3 damage on a crit, that can happen fairly easily. As others have mentioned, creatures like the basic 1/2 CR orc with its great axe could potentially instagib any low-level character in one hit. I personally just switched out their weapons.

In BECMI and 2E, you die at 0 HP, so those systems are quite deadly by RAW.

So I'd say 3E is deadlier than 1E, but less deadly than BECMI and 2E.

That being said, I don't recall actually playing BECMI without house-ruling in the -10 HP rules from AD&D 1E.

I think 1E it was -3 at least in the DMG.

 

[James Gasik]

I think 1E it was -3 at least in the DMG.

This is what Gary actually wrote:

When any creature is brought to 0 hit points (optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is unconscious. In each of the next succeeding rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until 10 is reached and the creature dies. Such loss and death are caused from bleeding, shock, convulsions, non-respiration, and similar causes. It ceases immediately on any round a friendly creature administers aid to the unconscious one. Aid consists of binding wounds, starting respiration, administering a drought (spirits, healing potion, etc.), or otherwise doing whatever is necessary to restore life.

Any character brought to 0 (or fewer) hit points and then revived will remain in a coma for 1-6 turns. Thereafter, he or she must rest for a full week, minimum. He or she will be incapable of any activity other than that necessary to move slowly to a place of rest and eat and sleep when there. The character cannot attack, defend, cast spells, use magic devices, carry burdens, run, study, research, or do anything else. This is true even if cure spells and/or healing potions are given to him or her, although if a heal spell is bestowed the prohibition no longer applies.

If any creature reaches a state of 6 or greater negative points before being revived, this could indicate scarring or the loss of some member, if you so choose. For example, a character struck by a fireball and then treated when at -9 might have horrible scar tissue on exposed areas of flesh , hands, arms, neck, face.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

3rd edition was a game of system mastery. It was easy mode if you knew how to make super powerful characters, and deadly if you didn't.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think 1E it was -3 at least in the DMG.

If you took a hit that brought you below -3 you where dead. If your hp where between 0 and -3 (inclusive) you would bleed out 1 hp per round until you died at -10.

 

[Zardnaar]

If you took a hit that brought you below -3 you where dead. If your hp where between 0 and -3 (inclusive) you would bleed out 1 hp per round until you died at -10.

Derp it's been a while. As always I blame the French.

 

[Staffan]

Another thing to consider about the -1 to -10 rule in 3e is that as you get to higher levels, things do more damage. At 1st or 2nd level, sure, you could take an unlucky crit to go straight to -10 regardless of your hp. But if you're fighting, say, a cloud giant hitting for 4d6+18 the chances of you just bypassing that 10-point buffer between "fine" and "dead" goes up by a lot.

 

[Zardnaar]

Another thing to consider about the -1 to -10 rule in 3e is that as you get to higher levels, things do more damage. At 1st or 2nd level, sure, you could take an unlucky crit to go straight to -10 regardless of your hp. But if you're fighting, say, a cloud giant hitting for 4d6+18 the chances of you just bypassing that 10-point buffer between "fine" and "dead" goes up by a lot.

The 50 damage instant death thing was more likely in 3E as well.

Only dragon breath in AD&D would hit 50 damage generally.

 

[Enrahim2]

The critical hit really is a big deal. But I think the -10 limit can actually have killed more due to a false sense of security. There seem to be a buffer that can make people miscalculate. I have had 2 characters in games I have been running die due to actively stepping in the way (attracting aggro) of an enemy clearly telegraphed as very dangerous, while having low hp. They most likely anticipated going on the negative, but not quite -10. They would likely have been right if the roll wasn't a crit. In AD&D I think they wouldnt have taken such a chance without a significantly higher hp buffer (there was others in the party much more able to handle the damage)

3ed also seem to be more prone due to dying by specialisation. I one published adventure I ran, a relatively high level character seemed almost unbeatable due to 8nvesting everything in regeneration, grappling and other defencive tactics. However once the powerful regeneration was taken away due to a surprise effect at the end of a combat where he had done calculated tanking - he was incredibly vulnerable to a surprise spell.

Or we had the party yhat suffered an almost complete TPK due to attacking a dragon in open hills despite only one in the party really having anything reasonabely effective for ranged combat against fire immune enemies..

So i would say 3ed actually are more prone to "accidental" deaths than AD&D. What AD&D on the other hand has is more instadeath effects, in particular the "default" poison. It is also more acceptable at many tables to have the DM present really deadly challenges, as creating new characters are much "cheaper" than in 3ed. And I believe it is mainly this effect that give AD&D a reputation for being more deadly than 3ed. (Along with the lower hp buffer at low levels)

 

[Oofta]

I had a near-TPK (one PC fled) in 3.0 when it was first out. The PCs ran into some orcs and their base critical damage was [edit]quadruple triple[/edit] damage but it pretty much was their fault.

Other than that? Like most editions it was as deadly as the DM and group wanted it to be. A bit less "oops you're dead" than previous editions.

 

[Staffan]

The 50 damage instant death thing was more likely in 3E as well.

Only dragon breath in AD&D would hit 50 damage generally.

True, but unless I misremember the instagib required failing a DC 15 Fortitude save, and by the time 50-point hits started flying around you probably had a pretty good chance of making those.

 

[Shatargat]

If AD&D is hard mode and 5E is easy mode, how does 3E fit into it?

I'd say it's a calculus version.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Woah.

"How big was the fish you caught in 3e?"

"OH MY! IT WAS THIS BIG! YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN IT!"

Look, I get the impulse to tell war stories about older editions, and try to say, "You have it so good today! Back in my day, the game was so lethal that my character died before we even stated playing!!11!!!!"

But no ... 3e is certainly more lethal 5e (which does a LOT to make the game lower in lethality), but it was also deigned to be less lethal than the prior, TSR versions.

Quick reminder-
The primary and dispositive difference between 3e and the TSR versions was not ascending AC, or oodles of hit points, or saves based on abilities, or any of that nonsense ... it was the idea of the primacy of RAW.

The whole thing about the evolution from OD&D to AD&D (1e) to 2e is this- it was a game that allowed for many styles of play, but had rules that fundamentally were geared toward high-fatality possibilities and cautious exploration. However, post-Hickman, it gradually morphed into a game that was more about narrative and heroic fantasy. Because of the lack of the primacy of RAW, pumping out of supplements by TSR, and the common use of DM fiat, by the time of 2e (and certainly later-period 2e) it was easy to say that "AD&D" (and 2e) wasn't high in lethality. But that would be a table variation.

The actual play of TSR-era AD&D (without modification) was incredibly lethal- the hit points were much lower. The saves, while they increased across the board, could still be incredibly low (to use one example, in 1e a 15th level MU would need an 11 to save against poison or a breath weapon, and a 21st or higher level thief needed the same save v. breath weapon!). Poison was almost always lethal, and monsters and traps with poison were common. Low-level monsters often had abilities that would take characters out of combat (or out of life) permanently. Weird and deleterious aging effects were common. System shock rolls (or just being a soulless, dead-eyed elf) would keep you from being resurrected.

Again, a lot of tables didn't play with all rules, or softened them. But this was an issue of table variation and the choice of many table to go for a more heroic narrative style of play.

The overall story of D&D is a constant march toward less lethality over time. 3e is just a part of that trend.

 

[Nefermandias]

I had a near-TPK (one PC fled) in 3.0 when it was first out. The PCs ran into some orcs and their base critical damage was quadruple damage but it pretty much was their fault.

Other than that? Like most editions it was as deadly as the DM and group wanted it to be. A bit less "oops you're dead" than previous editions.

Only pickaxes and scythes had X4 crit by default.

 

[Lanefan]

The actual play of TSR-era AD&D (without modification) was incredibly lethal- the hit points were much lower.

As was, with a few exceptions, the damage dealt.

The saves, while they increased across the board, could still be incredibly low (to use one example, in 1e a 15th level MU would need an 11 to save against poison or a breath weapon,

Keep in mind that while 11 was the target, by 15th level* a typical MU would have all sorts of tinker toys to help get to that target, if not an outright Periapt of Proof vs Poison to immunize against one of those.

and a 21st or higher level thief needed the same save v. breath weapon!). Poison was almost always lethal, and monsters and traps with poison were common.

Yes, poison was pretty black-and-white. An easy one to add some nuance to; IMO Gygax kinda left some real design space unused here.

Low-level monsters often had abilities that would take characters out of combat (or out of life) permanently. Weird and deleterious aging effects were common. System shock rolls (or just being a soulless, dead-eyed elf) would keep you from being resurrected.

That is one big difference: while I don't think 1e was really any more lethal than 3e, there was no guarantee that revival spells would work. The odds were usually in your favour, sure, but not certain unless your Con was 18 or higher.

The overall story of D&D is a constant march toward less lethality over time. 3e is just a part of that trend.

I'd go a step further and say it's been a constant march toward less challenge.

* - as if anyone ever played 1e to 15th level.

 

[Voadam]

Keep in mind that while 11 was the target, by 15th level* a typical MU would have all sorts of tinker toys to help get to that target, if not an outright Periapt of Proof vs Poison to immunize against one of those.

* - as if anyone ever played 1e to 15th level.

I was in a 1e game where my human fighter switched class to magic-user made it to 20th level MU. But that was using Arduin xp charts. I had a bunch of magic including a +1 ring of protection and a white robe of the archmagi, but nothing poison specific. I think I got hit by a poison trap once and missed the save, but there was some one shot item another PC had (Keoghtom's ointment probably) that brought me back.

Yes, poison was pretty black-and-white. An easy one to add some nuance to; IMO Gygax kinda left some real design space unused here.

Check out the 1e DMG, there are poisons in the assassin section that do a couple of different things. Having DMd a campaign with PC assassins who networked with guilds and bought poisons, it came up for our group.

 

[James Gasik]

I was in a 1e game where my human fighter switched class to magic-user made it to 20th level MU. But that was using Arduin xp charts. I had a bunch of magic including a +1 ring of protection and a white robe of the archmagi, but nothing poison specific. I think I got hit by a poison trap once and missed the save, but there was some one shot item another PC had (Keoghtom's ointment probably) that brought me back.


Check out the 1e DMG, there are poisons in the assassin section that do a couple of different things. Having DMd a campaign with PC assassins who networked with guilds and bought poisons, it came up for our group.

How did the Assassin find out they could even make poisons? Gary is explicit that you should never tell them, and make them ask the DM about it, lol.

 

[Lanefan]

I was in a 1e game where my human fighter switched class to magic-user made it to 20th level MU. But that was using Arduin xp charts.

And, no doubt, xp-for-gp.

I had a bunch of magic including a +1 ring of protection and a white robe of the archmagi, but nothing poison specific.

A 20th-level MU who's also got some Fighter to it - i.e. a character that's been through a bunch of adventures - must have come across a Ring of Protection better than +1 at some point. Either that, or your DM was uncommonly stingy.

Check out the 1e DMG, there are poisons in the assassin section that do a couple of different things. Having DMd a campaign with PC assassins who networked with guilds and bought poisons, it came up for our group.

Yeah, it's pretty easy to expand the range of poison effects.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I would agree with a lot of the other posters.

Some factors I haven't seen discussed much:

System mastery applied to both sides of the table. A DM with strong system mastery of the system could create encounters that could absolutely steamroll any non-optimized party, without ever straying outside the bounds of the encounter guidelines. Granted, doing this would make for extremely lengthy session prep.

Another factor was WBL. If the DM didn't follow WBL or simply didn't award useful treasure (and didn't let you trade in your useless items at a magic shop), the game could be MUCH deadlier than the baseline. There was a pretty huge power disparity between a WBL party that had access to anything they wanted at the local magic shop, vs a party that was significantly below WBL, or was technically WBL but only had an assortment of randomly rolled magic items.

 

[MerricB]

Critical hits made a big difference in 3e, especially as they might be x3 or even x4... with that also multiplying Strength and other bonuses.

There was a time when a fully-healed 3rd-level ranger entered a fight with an orc with a greataxe... and died in a single critical hit.

At higher levels, if you wanted to kill characters, you included huge monsters who were good at grappling. The way the bonuses were calculated, there was no way for the characters to escape.

The scaling of monsters vs character level was problematic. I remember one campaign where the characters faced some trolls at one level and had to run away or be killed. Two levels later, and the trolls weren't even a speed bump.

AD&D is lethal at low levels, but less lethal at high levels. One interesting point is that spells become EASIER to save against... while in 3E, they became significantly harder. It was entirely possible to find a monster (or more often an NPC or PC) that you couldn't resist their spells.

There are a few monsters in AD&D that are pretty lethal (save or die is bad when you roll low!), but in general if you don't allow yourself to be mobbed and you have decent armour, you've got a good chance of running away if things got lethal.

The real trick is that in AD&D, healing is so limited that it makes you more cautious and you run away more. The attrition is a real thing.
In 3E, healing is easy and it is easy to be overconfident.

Ultimately, though, it depended on your DM and what they threw at you. I can kill characters in 4E or 5E all night long; I just have to be totally unfair in what they face!

Cheers,
Merric