Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8887477" data-attributes="member: 7039850">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&amp;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 &quot;accidental&quot; deaths than AD&amp;D. What AD&amp;D on the other hand has is more instadeath effects, in particular the &quot;default&quot; poison. It is also more acceptable at many tables to have the DM present really deadly challenges, as creating new characters are much &quot;cheaper&quot; than in 3ed. And I believe it is mainly this effect that give AD&amp;D a reputation for being more deadly than 3ed. (Along with the lower hp buffer at low levels)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Enrahim2, post: 8887477, member: 7039850"] 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) [/QUOTE]

Verification