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.
D&D General Refresh my memory on the lethality of 3rd ed
Shatargat
Kara Ejder
I'd say it's a calculus version.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
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.
"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
Hero
Only pickaxes and scythes had X4 crit by default.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
As was, with a few exceptions, the damage dealt.
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.
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.
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.
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
Legend
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.* - as if anyone ever played 1e to 15th level.
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
Victoria Rules
And, no doubt, xp-for-gp.
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.
Yeah, it's pretty easy to expand the range of poison effects.
Fanaelialae
Legend
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.
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.
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
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
Similar Threads
