D&D 5E This Game is Deadly

[ren1999]

I'm not complaining about it.
Combat is fast, which is what I want.
But party deaths will occur in greater numbers.
Best to have 2 clerics in the party with Revivify.
Have Revivify scrolls available as gifts or treasure during low level adventures.

 

[Evenglare]

I'm not complaining about it.
Combat is fast, which is what I want.
But party deaths will occur in greater numbers.
Best to have 2 clerics in the party with Revivify.
Have Revivify scrolls available as gifts or treasure during low level adventures.

Well normal adventuring is supposed to start at level 3, 1 and 2 are supposed to be apprentice levels where you are doing small time stuff. I agree it's deadly but it's definitely by design. By level 3 you should have enough HP to start doing some real adventuring. I think our group got to level 3 within a couple of hours with the starter set, there were only 3 of us playing though so it may have been a bit quicker than normal.

 

[Libramarian]

There should always be a chance on any given adventure that you return with fewer XPs than you started out with, IMO.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Well normal adventuring is supposed to start at level 3, 1 and 2 are supposed to be apprentice levels where you are doing small time stuff. I agree it's deadly but it's definitely by design. By level 3 you should have enough HP to start doing some real adventuring. I think our group got to level 3 within a couple of hours with the starter set, there were only 3 of us playing though so it may have been a bit quicker than normal.

I would say that the Starter set is "normal adventuring", and it starts at level 1. If you want to play a less deadly 5e game, you should probably start at level 2+, but I wouldn't say starting at level 3 is the norm. I will check with my group to see what they prefer, I don't actually mind level 1 and 2, since it's only supposed to be 1-2 sesions before you are level 3.

 

[Shiroiken]

I have not yet played with the new rules (my group is still using the last playtest packet until the PHB comes out), so I don't know if this is true. I hope it is though, as I felt the playtest was far too easy. I did see that Spare the Dying got toned down (a bit too much IMO; should still be swift), and I've heard that monsters have gotten quite a bit stronger. I still doubt that many higher (5+) level characters will die without a TPK (instant death is too hard, and presumably an ally will stabilize them with a Healer's Kit). In a group of 5, I think 1 Cleric (or Druid) is fine, but the sixth character is better off as a healer of some sort (Paladin/Ranger at minimum).

 

[jadrax]

I did see that Spare the Dying got toned down (a bit too much IMO; should still be swift), and I've heard that monsters have gotten quite a bit stronger.

Pretty much almost every healing spell has been downgraded hard. Some now heal half as much as they did in the play test.

Conversely, a lot of monsters have had their hit dice increased by 25% to 50%.

 

[Reynard]

There should always be a chance on any given adventure that you return with fewer XPs than you started out with, IMO.

I concur. Adventuring is a dangerous business. Seeking fame and fortune in the monster infested places of the world should not be for the meek (or the sane, but that's a different discussion altogether). The hero is the one who survives by wit, grit and luck. Everyone else is a cautionary tale told to the young to keep them in their apprenticeships and schools.

Of course, in different kinds of campaigns, the "rules" are different. if you are telling a Heroic Journey, death on a kobold punji stick at the bottom of a muddy pit is less appropriate (but, then, that's why i don't run Heroic Journey campaigns).

 

[ExploderWizard]

I can't wait to give it a try. At low levels this looks like it could possibly be deadlier than TSR era D&D. Not because of the PC or monster stats, but because of the reward system.

A 1st level TSR D&D party could do their best to avoid confrontations while trying to collect enough treasure to level up. A 5E party really needs to face those confrontations to earn their XP. So what you have is neophyte PC fragility combined with an XP system that (largely) only rewards defeating enemies.

Sounds deadly to me.

 

[Evenglare]

I would say that the Starter set is "normal adventuring", and it starts at level 1. If you want to play a less deadly 5e game, you should probably start at level 2+, but I wouldn't say starting at level 3 is the norm. I will check with my group to see what they prefer, I don't actually mind level 1 and 2, since it's only supposed to be 1-2 sesions before you are level 3.

Just passing on what I've heard from wizards. They say level 3 is the old level 1.

 

[SigmaOne]

I can't wait to give it a try. At low levels this looks like it could possibly be deadlier than TSR era D&D. Not because of the PC or monster stats, but because of the reward system.

A 1st level TSR D&D party could do their best to avoid confrontations while trying to collect enough treasure to level up. A 5E party really needs to face those confrontations to earn their XP. So what you have is neophyte PC fragility combined with an XP system that (largely) only rewards defeating enemies.

Sounds deadly to me.

Well, one can receive XP for accomplishing goals, regardless of winning, losing, or running from battles. Being clever in avoiding deadly situations or tricking enemies should be worth a fair number of experience points.